You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Kyle Adams <ka...@gfs.com> on 2003/05/19 22:02:16 UTC
J2EE Deployment Models
This is not an Ant-specific question, but I'm not aware of any general
build/deploy/promotion practices e-mail lists, and this is the closest
thing to that. If
someone does know of such a list/newsgroup, let me know and I redirect
my query
as appropriate.
Our current deployment for J2EE apps is to use an EAR. Inside the
EAR's base
directory, we have a lib directory, which contains JARs that the EJB
JARs may
reference in their Class-Path entry (ie, fop.jar, log4j.jar, etc.).
Also within the base
directory are all the WARs and EJB JARs that make up the EAR.
We have a third party source providing us with an EAR that uses a
radically
different deployment model, and I'd be curious to hear opinions and
thoughts on it.
Within the EAR the application is split up into three different
groupings:
presentation, common, and service tiers. Each group is a JAR file,
containing
within it whatever EJB JARs or WARs fall within that logical grouping.
So there are
3 layers of packging that occur - the EJBs and WARs get wrapped up into
a
generic JAR by group, and then the 3 groups composing the application
get
wrapped up into an EAR.
As build manager and deployer, our build, deploy, and promotion
processes (and by
that, I mean the automated scripts, including Ant files) would face
signifigant
change to support this new model. I also have concerns about how
standard or
non-standard this type of deployment model is. We really try to stick
close to the
specs for J2EE and avoid anything that ties us to non-standard
practices, or
vendor lock-in.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Kyle Adams
Developer, Gordon Food Service