geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn Jiang <genspr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Can anyone tell me what's the reason to remove the .jar extension in GERONIMO-5253 ?
Date Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:17:31 GMT
Hi David,

I just attached a patch to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-1439

<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-1439>All ejblink cases passed
locally with the patch.  Could you help review it ?

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:00 AM, David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks, Shawn!
>
> On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>
> > In the changes of JIRA[1] made by Jarek, there are many code[2] added in
> all module builders to remove the .jar extension from module name.  I could
> also find similar change[1] in openejb code.    For EJB module,  because
> openejb will need the .jar style module name to resolve the EJB
> link(xxx.jar#xxx),  the change broke the ejb link cases.
>
> Looks like we broke the link resolving code when we added the Java EE 6
> <module-name> support.  The link resolving code shouldn't be using the
> moduleId, rather the path of the archive itself.
>
> Previously there was not spec defined concept of module-name (moduleId for
> us).  When we pushed in the spec module-name concept on top of the existing
> code, things probably got a little confused.  The moduleId vs path logic was
> never very clear in the code previously.  Probably we need to do some tweaks
> in the integration and maybe OpenEJB to get this right.
>
> > I want to revert the .jar removal code from  EjbModuleBuilder to fix
> this, but I don't want to broke other things because of the revert. Can
> anyone tell me what's the reason to remove the .jar extension ?
>
> That's the spec defined module name if the <module-name> element isn't set
> in the descriptor.
>
>
> -David
>
>


-- 
Shawn

Mime
View raw message