geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shiva Kumar H R" <shiv...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Eclipse Tooling for Geronimo 2.0
Date Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:13:50 GMT
Searched Geronimo sandbox
(http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/sandbox/right?) for code
related to Geronimo specific annotations. My search in
vain. Please point me to the code you are referring to.

-- 
Thx,
Shiva

On 2/20/07, Sachin Patel <sppatel2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Shiva,
> There hasn't been much positive feedback around it, but I still strongly
> believe there is value around geronimo specific annotations.  If not yet
> used by the runtime, having them atleast for development purposes would be
> great.  Is this something you could look into? Currently in the sandbox
> there are some geronimo specific annotations but there are xdoclet based.
> Perhaps this work could be ported over to 175 by creating an annotation
> processes for them.  (There are extensions in the Eclipse Platform to allow
> to create processors for 175 annotations).  If we could have a working
> prototype of something like this then we could perhaps better evaluate the
> need for it.
>
> So for now the question regarding 175 specific annotations for Geronimo
> breaks down into two peices..
>
> (1) Provide 175 annotations that the annotation processor would run
> against during a workspace build that would generate the necessary xml (like
> xdoc today)
> (2) Runtime -- Allow geronimo specific 175 annotations that are not
> processed in the IDE, but referenced and resolve at runtime.  (Like all the
> rest of the JEE annotations)
>
> -sachin
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2007, at 6:56 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
>
> Meanwhile I am looking at what are the community's plans towards Geronimo
> 2.0 Deployment Plans and the required support we might have to provide in
> DevTools.
>
> Given that Java EE 5 Annotations now makes the use of XML deployment
> descriptors optional (except for the deployment descriptor required by
> servlet specification in web.xml I think), what could be our strategies
> towards Geronimo Deployment Plans?
>
> Are we going to retain the XML structure for our deployment plans? or Are
> we going to create Geronimo specific Annotations for them? This was asked
> earlier also but didn't receive any notice then:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg39672.html
>
> --
> Thx,
> Shiva
>
> On 2/19/07, Hernan Cunico <hcunico@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Great news!!! can't wait to give it try ;-)
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Hernan
> >
> > Sachin Patel wrote:
> > > So I think now is a good time as any to bring up discussion around our
> > > Eclipse Tooling delivery for Geronimo 2.0.  It would be great if we
> > can
> > > provide a tooling driver for this milestone unlike last so that we can
> >
> > > provide our users and end to end solution.  The last time I tried to
> > > work on a driver I was blocked by a critical Eclipse defect, which has
> > > now been delivered to a stable milestone driver so I should be able to
> >
> > > pick up work back up on this again.  I'm going to start by just
> > getting
> > > a driver out that uses WTP 2.0 and adds Geronimo 2.0 as a runtime and
> > > server.  I'm not going to focus on any of the editor support for the
> > > Geronimo 2.0 schemas yet.  Last time I chose EMF as the underlying
> > > modeling framework for our deployment plans, but this time for
> > > simplicity purposes I think we should consider to just pull in an use
> > > the XML Beans generated code as-is.
> > >
> > > I'm not at all familiar with what has changed in WTP or its EE5
> > > capabilities.  So once I have provide this driver, it would be great
> > if
> > > we people could pick it up and run with it to see what additional
> > > features from an EE side of things are needed.  WTP is still under
> > > development and I'm sure then more than willing to squeeze in
> > > requirements from our community.
> > >
> > > -sachin
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message