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?
> 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?
> 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.


>
> As a result of these changes, we can get ride of a couple of jars  
> currently in lib and load them from the repository. You can expect  
> to see in lib a sub-set of the dependencies imported by geronimo- 
> system. We could have a sub-set of the dependencies imported by  
> geronimo-kernel if we move some classes 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?

thanks
david jencks

>
> Thanks,
> Gianny