geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gianny Damour <gianny.dam...@optusnet.com.au>
Subject Re: online/offline deployers - ModuleConfigurer Registration
Date Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:02:37 GMT
On 02/02/2007, at 4:11 AM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 5:00 AM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am ready to check-in some changes to the way online and offline  
>> deployers are booted and configured such that ModuleConfigurer can  
>> be easily registered with the JMXDeploymentManager.
>>
>> As per David J. suggestion, deployer.jar now boots a Kernel and  
>> starts a list of configurations to register the ModuleConfigurers.  
>> The list of configurations to start is named jsr88-configurer- 
>> config.xml and it is no more no less a persistent configuration  
>> list file (a file a la config.xml). In this file, there is a  
>> module declaration for each type (jar, rar, war and ear) of  
>> ModuleConfigurer implementations. When the deployer is started in  
>> offline mode, an additional set of configurations is started to  
>> register the relevant builders. This additional list of  
>> configuration is named offline-deployer-config.xml and it is also  
>> a persistent configuration list file.
>>
>> A couple of problems I am aware of:
>> 1. ModuleConfigurers and ModuleBuilders classes are still in a  
>> same jar.
>
> we can fix these one by one, right?
Yes. I contemplated doing the relevant changes to split  
ModuleConfigurers and ModuleBuilders; however, I simply put it on  
hold as we may not need it at the moment.


>> 2. offline-deployer-list will be dropped and no more supported (it  
>> is replaced by offline-deployer-config.xml).
>
> and this is a problem how exactly :-) ?  I'd say this is an  
> improvement?
I agree :). I just wanted to be sure that people will not be surprise  
when they discover that offline-deployer-list has been dropped.


>> 3. the JMXDeploymentManager instances used by the maven plugins do  
>> not have access to the ModuleConfigurers.
>
> I can't see any bad effect from this, can you?  IIUC they don't now  
> either.
Indeed. There is no bad effect and we keep the status quo.

>>  around (e.g. the Maven2Repository).
>>
>> I intend to commit these changes over the week-end. So, let me  
>> know if you have any concerns or if you want me to first address  
>> 1, 2 or 3.
>
> Does this slow down normal deployment due to starting up the  
> additional kernel?
It is rather unnoticeable from an user perspective.

Thanks,
Gianny

>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gianny
>


Mime
View raw message