Mailing-List: contact user-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer;
  b=ATO0+Dvul3IiQuKGXIMNIleQhSeJhj9FrXRKJWmsTOuIZxni6RxmtgkFfoTnkv37/iPxAazsUrTN3UtQEfZYfF7Nk/VF5dNwDyHmLmRQcSUzgNFSGhwdAE3jK7mrLXXMt1qAQP4InmFp8Z4pvC3ifc+XF6sL+38jUE7IVM9RoRI=
  ;
Message-Id: <6C36DF1D-D1FF-47B0-B47D-AB0B0157BFCD@yahoo.com>
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
To: user@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <22603235.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: Suggestion to improve packaging of ejb-jars
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:48:47 -0700
References: <22588998.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <657EE0CF-DE1A-41BE-9B1A-3F7FA0AE5EA3@yahoo.com>
 <22589890.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <4B23272D-C427-4279-8FCA-6618478732AE@yahoo.com>
 <22603235.post@talk.nabble.com>


On Mar 19, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Olaf Bergner wrote:

>
> Thanks for your pointer, I will have a closer look at the maven-car- 
> plugin.
> Last time I checked, however, I had to write the list of required
> dependencies by hand, a task that should be offloaded to maven/the
> maven-car-plugin, IMO.
>

Using plugins is much easier in trunk.... there we do (by default)  
follow maven transitive dependencies, and track if they've changed  
with src/history/dependency.xml files, and we also have the framework  
plugin group which makes assembling a server very easy.  I wish we  
could get 2.2 out really soon. :-(((((((

> As to your question: it is true that my solution for building an ear  
> is not
> totally automatic, i.e. I have to decide up front which dependencies  
> are to
> be shared between all modules. By putting those into a separate pom,
> however, and referencing that pom in scope "provided" from all jee  
> modules,
> in scope "runtime" from my ear module maven more or less automatically
> produces a correctly packaged ear.

I don't think I've fought with this recently :-)  I have some  
recollection that some of the maven plugins could use some more  
configuration about whether they package jars into the ear/war/rar  
automatically depending on the dependency scope.  For geronimo I think  
we'd like a flag that would let the dependencies be "normal scope" so  
geronimo would see them but maven would not include them in the ee  
artifact.  I think I saw that there were some changes recently but I  
don't know if this is supported yet.

Anyway your ear-building seems like it will work.

How important do you see separate classloaders for each ejb jar and  
rar?  Do you expect any actual problems from a shared classloader or  
does it just seem inelegant?

thanks
david jencks

>
>
> Thx,
> Olaf
>
>
> djencks wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Olaf Bergner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, adopting the Geronimo way of explicitly declaring a
>>> module's
>>> dependencies as references to jars contained in Geronimo's
>>> repository is the
>>> most explicit way of making that module's needs known to the world.
>>> On the
>>> other hand, it may be argued that packaging dependencies that are  
>>> only
>>> needed by one module inside that module is still closer to the
>>> "truth" than
>>> throwing them all indifferently into the enclosing ear's lib
>>> directory.
>>
>> I tend to agree that the classloader structure of javaee applications
>> is not well defined and very likely it would be pretty handy to have
>> classloader-per-module for ejb apps and rars as well as the ear
>> classloader from the lib directory.  In current geronimo, it's only
>> going to be a notation of what you'd prefer in a more ideal world.
>>
>> For wars in an ear, you can indeed specify geronimo dependencies for
>> the war alone referencing the g. repo rather than (and equivalent to)
>> including the jars in the war's WEB-INF/lib.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Moreover, it is precisely my use of maven and my meticulously
>>> managing my
>>> dependencies that led to this suggestion. I rely on maven's  
>>> dependency
>>> management capabilities to automatically compute each module's
>>> classpath,
>>> leading to the scenario I described in my original post.
>>>
>>> Anyway: is there a maven plugin that allows me to convert my ear
>>> into a
>>> Geronimo plugin, using maven's knowledge about the required
>>> dependencies to
>>> automatically build the required environment entries?
>>
>> I don't entirely understand what you are asking for.... once you've
>> built an ear or war that includes some jars, you have to do some work
>> with the dependency plugin to take them out again.  On the other hand
>> if you assemble an ear that does not include a bunch of jars in the
>> lib directory but the modules have maven dependencies that you need,
>> you can use the car-maven-plugin to build the ear into a geronimo
>> plugin that references the jars as (geronimo) dependencies.  When you
>> install the plugin, it will pull the jars into geronimo also.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Olaf
>>>
>>>
>>> djencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Olaf Bergner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have several ejb-jar packaged inside an ear. Libraries to be
>>>>> shared between
>>>>> some or all of these ejb-jars are placed inside the encompassing
>>>>> ear's "lib"
>>>>> directory, as decreed by the standard. Some libraries, however,  
>>>>> are
>>>>> local to
>>>>> the using ejb-jar, i.e. they don't need to be shared.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to package these libraries inside the using ejb-jar,
>>>>> creating
>>>>> appropriate Class-Path entries in that ejb-jar's manifest file.
>>>>> This,
>>>>> however, leads to a deployment error as obviously the Class-Path
>>>>> entries in
>>>>> the ejb-jar's manifest file are resolved relative to the enclosing
>>>>> ear and
>>>>> are therefore not found.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggestion: make Geronimo resolve those dependencies relative to  
>>>>> the
>>>>> ejb-jar
>>>>> declaring them. Same goes for rars.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> rars already have a nested structure, anything inside has to be  
>>>> in a
>>>> jar.  Or are you suggesting we support infinitely nested jars?
>>>>
>>>> In geronimo everything in all the ejb jars and rars ends up in the
>>>> same classloader so you won't get any difference in behavior by  
>>>> doing
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> I'm generally against these nested packagings.  I think they were
>>>> dreamed up in the dark ages before people realized that their
>>>> software
>>>> was part of the worldwide software ecosystem and that you need to
>>>> document explicitly how your software relates to other stuff.  This
>>>> is
>>>> the kind of problem maven tries to solve.  People who still use ant
>>>> IMO still haven't recognized that this is something they can think
>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> So, in geronimo I recommend packing as little as possible in an  
>>>> ear,
>>>> instead using dependencies to include the same jars from the  
>>>> geronimo
>>>> repo into the appropriate classloaders.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Olaf
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-improve-packaging-of-ejb-jars-tp22588998s134p22588998.html
>>>>> Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Users mailing list archive at
>>>>> Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-improve-packaging-of-ejb-jars-tp22588998s134p22589890.html
>>> Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Users mailing list archive at
>>> Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-improve-packaging-of-ejb-jars-tp22588998s134p22603235.html
> Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Users mailing list archive at  
> Nabble.com.
>