geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <drw_...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Some features for 1.1.1 -- module/deployment extensions
Date Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:35:17 GMT
Would this also enable the scenario of someone wanting to upgrade a 
minimal-tomcat-server with the unavailable-webservices-deployer to 
include the Axis and Axis-builder modules?


-Donald

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> FYI, I plan to address
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1873 as soon as possible
> in 1.1.1.  I'd like plugins to be able to define new deployment unit
> formats (e.g. JBI service assemblies, a Spring deployment unit, a
> Quartz job as a deployment unit, or a Jasper report as a deployment
> unit).
> 
> Any of those will probably need a geronimo-XYZ.xml deployment plan, to
> supply a module ID and dependencies if nothing else.  And currently,
> the deploy tool doesn't know how to crack open an arbitrary deployment
> unit and figure out its module ID, which is necessary to support
> redeployment when the plan is embedded in the archive (it has to know
> what existing module(s) to replace).
> 
> There are two possible solutions: one is to stop using JSR-88 for
> deployment and just pass the archive to the server and let it do its
> thing; the other is to let each deployer indicate the name of its
> deployment plan (when the plan is packed in the module).  I'd lean
> toward the second approach for 1.1.1, as it's a fairly trivial change.
> 
> A related question is whether we should let you pack non-J2EE
> deployment units in an EAR.  That is, if we define a JasperReports
> report deployment unit, should your EAR be able to contain a WAR, an
> EJB JAR, and 2 reports?  I would think so, though we may choose to
> implement a wrapper that would hold the EAR and the 2 reports instead.
> I'm not sure how extensive a change this might require -- we seem to
> have some special handling for classpaths for modules within an EAR,
> and I don't know where that happens and what's likely to break.
> 
> If we do nothing, the alternative is that you'd only be able to
> redeploy new types of modules if you pass either the module ID or the
> plan on the command line along with the archive (no packing plan in
> archive), and if you had a J2EE app and a handful of other modules
> that all work together, you would still have to deploy/redeploy them
> all individually.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message