more jsr-77 like gbean names -- GERONIMO-450

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

On the plane yesterday I started working on this stuff and think I'm  
close to having some parts working.  I'm wondering if I should commit  
them or wait for a more complete implementation.

In the interests of not completely breaking backwards compatibility I  
currently have stuff like this:

<gbean name="domain:key1=value1" class=...

or

<gbean namePart="ConnectorBuilder" type="ModuleBuilder"  
class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.deployment.ConnectorModuleBuilder">

resulting in an object name of

geronimo.server:J2EEApplication=null,J2EEModule=org/apache/geronimo/ 
J2EEDeployer,J2EEServer=geronimo,j2eeType=ModuleBuilder,name=ConnectorBu 
ilder

As you can see, the names get longer but somewhat more systematic.

My guess is that I can get this much to work soon, but won't have time  
to implement the other parts for a while.

Opinions? Votes?

thanks
david jencks

Re: more jsr-77 like gbean names -- GERONIMO-450

[David Jencks <dj...@gluecode.com>]

On Jan 3, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> Which classes did you change and is this mostly an additive feature?

There are small changes in all the XXXBuilders.  The major change is in  
all the plans to rename the gbeans.  I'm not sure how additive to think  
of it, since all the gbeans now have different names.

One aspect of this I didn't think about much before is what to do with  
references.  The object names are now longer, so it's a bit lengthy to  
include the entire object name in the reference, especially if almost  
all of it is predetermined.  We could try something like the jndi  
reference descriptor where you can specify various parts of the object  
name and the unspecified parts are assumed from the context.  However,  
we would have to do something to avoid mixed content.

Now we have

<reference  
name="ResourceReferenceBuilder">geronimo.server: 
J2EEApplication=null,J2EEModule=org/apache/geronimo/ 
J2EEDeployer,J2EEServer=geronimo,j2eeType=ModuleBuilder,name=ConnectorBu 
ilder</reference>

We might like
<reference name="ResourceReferenceBuilder">
   <j2eeType>ModuleBuilder</j2eeType>
   <name>ConnectorBuilder</name>
</reference>

or
<reference name="ResourceReferenceBuilder">
   <component key="j2eeType">ModuleBuilder</component >
   <component key="name">ConnectorBuilder</component >
</reference>

Perhaps we could use a different name for these alternate forms?  
reference-parts?  reference-components?  Any ideas?

many thanks
david jencks


>
> -dain
>
> --
> Dain Sundstrom
> Chief Architect
> Gluecode Software
> 310.536.8355, ext. 26
>
> On Jan 3, 2005, at 1:53 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> On the plane yesterday I started working on this stuff and think I'm  
>> close to having some parts working.  I'm wondering if I should commit  
>> them or wait for a more complete implementation.
>>
>> In the interests of not completely breaking backwards compatibility I  
>> currently have stuff like this:
>>
>> <gbean name="domain:key1=value1" class=...
>>
>> or
>>
>> <gbean namePart="ConnectorBuilder" type="ModuleBuilder"  
>> class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.deployment.ConnectorModuleBuilder 
>> ">
>>
>> resulting in an object name of
>>
>> geronimo.server:J2EEApplication=null,J2EEModule=org/apache/geronimo/ 
>> J2EEDeployer,J2EEServer=geronimo,j2eeType=ModuleBuilder,name=Connector 
>> Builder
>>
>> As you can see, the names get longer but somewhat more systematic.
>>
>> My guess is that I can get this much to work soon, but won't have  
>> time to implement the other parts for a while.
>>
>> Opinions? Votes?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>

Re: more jsr-77 like gbean names -- GERONIMO-450

[Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>]

Which classes did you change and is this mostly an additive feature?

-dain

--
Dain Sundstrom
Chief Architect
Gluecode Software
310.536.8355, ext. 26

On Jan 3, 2005, at 1:53 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> On the plane yesterday I started working on this stuff and think I'm  
> close to having some parts working.  I'm wondering if I should commit  
> them or wait for a more complete implementation.
>
> In the interests of not completely breaking backwards compatibility I  
> currently have stuff like this:
>
> <gbean name="domain:key1=value1" class=...
>
> or
>
> <gbean namePart="ConnectorBuilder" type="ModuleBuilder"  
> class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.deployment.ConnectorModuleBuilder" 
> >
>
> resulting in an object name of
>
> geronimo.server:J2EEApplication=null,J2EEModule=org/apache/geronimo/ 
> J2EEDeployer,J2EEServer=geronimo,j2eeType=ModuleBuilder,name=ConnectorB 
> uilder
>
> As you can see, the names get longer but somewhat more systematic.
>
> My guess is that I can get this much to work soon, but won't have time  
> to implement the other parts for a while.
>
> Opinions? Votes?
>
> thanks
> david jencks