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: [Discuss] Model for deployment plans in GEP - Move from EMF to XMLBeans or JAXB?
Date Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:23:15 GMT
I will be committing Yun Feng's patch today, to kick start GEP refactoring
:)

This patch adds two new directories under plugins:
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.v11.jaxbmodel, and
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.v21.jaxbmodel
which contain JAXB generated classes for our G plans. The patch has also
refactored some part of GEP code to use these JAXB model classes instead of
EMF.

We need to continue refactoring rest of GEP code and eventually get rid of
following EMF modules:
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model.edit
org.apache.geronimo.v11.deployment.model
org.apache.geronimo.v11.deployment.model.edit

And further, once we figure out how to handle multiple schemas, we must be
able to merge org.apache.geronimo.deployment.v11.jaxbmodel and
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.v21.jaxbmodel into *one*

Once we have such single model which can handle multiple schemas, I am
hoping that we could merge these as well:
org.apache.geronimo.st.ui,
org.apache.geronimo.st.v1.ui,
org.apache.geronimo.st.v11.ui,
org.apache.geronimo.st.v20.ui, and
org.apache.geronimo.st.v21.ui

Just in case we mess up things ;) we have taken backup of existing GEP trunk
under branches/2.1/ . We will be committing all new code under trunk.

And trunk builds might fail for sometime until this refactoring is complete.

-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Shiva Kumar H R <shivahr@gmail.com> wrote:

> There have been further discussions on this in IRC and in JIRA. As
> recommended in
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200802.mbox/%3c5da94e5a0802212321m4b282128q89add861e150c64f@mail.gmail.com%3e
> I am summarizing those discussions below:
> (Tim, DJencks, DBlevins & Yun Feng - Please correct if am wrong)
>
> 1) JAXB/XMLBeans/DConfigBeans:
> a) On a further discussion about XMLBeans and JAXB, we saw that writing
> deployment code might turn out be much easier by using JAXB rather than
> XMLBeans.
>
> b) On a discussion about whether GEP should ideally be using JSR-88
> DConfigBeans, we wondered if JSR-88 DConfigBeans are a dead idea & should be
> left alone, because No One other than Geronimo even thinks about trying to
> implement them.
>
> So we concluded that it is worth experimenting with JAXB.
>
> 2) Hints from OpenEJB about using JAXB:
> a) On a discussion about how OpenEJB uses JAXB, it seems schemas are
> compiled only once (instead of compiling during every build as is currently
> done both in Geronimo and GEP) and checked in to the source stream.
> I too don't see any point in compiling G schemas during every build of
> GEP, and the one time compilation & check in approach of OpenEJB looks ideal
> to me for GEP also. This would lead to significant savings in build time.
> Please point out if I am missing something.
>
> b) It seems that the real beauty (& ease of use) of JAXB comes from the
> ability to customize JAXB generated classes (like (i) adding interfaces,
> (ii) removing all their wrappers for simple types like string, int, boolean
> etc, (iii) using Maps instead of Lists for auto indexing things that can be
> keyed, etc). OpenEJB uses those customizations. To keep the Customized JAXB
> classes and Schema in sync, OpenEJB has unit tests that read in xml
> documents, write them out again, then compare the results. A similar
> approach could be used in GEP also.
>
> 3) Handling multiple schema versions
> I guess JAXB could help us better with multiple version of schemas. (I
> mean a single set of JAXB classes being able to read/write say
> geronimo-web.xml in v1.1, v2.0, v2.0.1 etc). We need to explore this more.
>
> Tim, Yun Feng and myself are looking at completing this refactoring at the
> earliest so that we could then focus on other JIRAs/features & release GEP
> 2.1. Yun Feng already has a patch that has ported good amount of GEP onto
> JAXB and I am looking at committing it tomorrow.
>
> If you forsee any concerns with the approaches above, kindly reply.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Shiva
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Shiva Kumar H R <shivahr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Please see 11-Feb IRC chat btw djencks, shivahr & mcconne
> > http://servlet.uwyn.com/drone/log/bevinbot/geronimo/20080211 for further
> > discussions on this.
> >
> > As recommended by DJencks we will experiment using JAXB in GEP 2.1.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Shiva
> >
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2008 9:22 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Feb 11, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> > >
> > > I went through following tutorials of JAXB & XMLBeans:
> > >   a) Java Architecture for XML Binding (JAXB)
> > >   http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/WebServices/jaxb/
> > >   b) Tutorial: First Steps with XMLBeans
> > >   http://xmlbeans.apache.org/documentation/tutorial_getstarted.html
> > >
> > > Also searched for comparisons btw them. Latest one I could find is the
> > > following blog from Jan'2005: http://technology.amis.nl/blog/?p=321
> > >
> > > I am yet to see the value add JAXB brings over XMLBeans. Am I missing
> > > something?
> > >
> > >
> > > My $0.02:
> > >
> > > xmlbeans is a complete and accurate representation of the xml infoset.
> > >  As a result, you can easily manipulate the xml, but you get a slightly
> > > peculiar java object model that exactly represents the schema and cannot be
> > > modified.
> > >
> > > jaxb is focussed on the java pojos and lets you modify the pojos
> > > considerably from the xml while still providing accurate mapping.  This can
> > > be much more convenient for directly constructing a pojo tree from xml
> > > suitable for configuring server components.  It provides fewer validity
> > > checks than xmlbeans.
> > >
> > > Openejb is using jaxb and I think their deployment code is pretty
> > > simple for the complexity they have to deal with.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > david jencks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 11, 2008 4:44 PM, Shiva Kumar H R <shivahr@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I think a
> > > > > very strong argument can be made for moving the deployer code to
jaxb.
> > > > >
> > > > Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a
> > > > separate thread on this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > david jencks
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
> > > > >     a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
> > > > > Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every
> > > > > update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to generate
new EMF
> > > > > classes. If however, GEP uses the same model framework as that of
Geronimo
> > > > > server (XMLBeans), then at least this problem would be solved. IIUC
JSR-88
> > > > > DConfigBeans would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that
case even
> > > > > if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP would be
unaffected.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Shiva
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Shiva
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Shiva
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message