You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> on 2003/08/14 03:50:49 UTC
Re: [JSR-88] Which Java Package?
thats what i was thinking. I'ld like to give it a
start as well. Need a hand? I was going over the specs
some more...and some of the other specs. I'm hitting
the sack for now..
--- Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> What Java package should be used as a parent for
> the JSR-88 and
> related code, including the server impl, tool impl,
> and the actual J2EE
> deployment code? ...geronimo.deployer jumps to
> mind, but that seems to be
> taken by the things that deploys server components,
> not something related
> to application components. Perhaps
> ...geronimo.enterprise.deploy in
> lines with javax.enterprise.deploy?
>
> In any case, I'm going to start work on the server
> side, since it
> sounds like others are ready to start on the tool
> side.
>
> Aaron
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: [JSR-88] Which Java Package?
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
Anyone know what is up with the
javax.enterprise.deploy.* sources?
--- Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, James Strachan wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 04:55 am, Aaron
> Mulder wrote:
> > > .enterprise.deploy.provider // the JSR-88
> provider code
> > > .enterprise.deploy.tool // the JSR-88 tool
> code
> > > .enterprise.deploy.server // the back-end
> Geronimo logic that
> > > // is not specific
> to JSR-88
> >
> > How about the above but without the .enterprise?
> Geronimo is an
> > enterprise server so I guess thats not required.
>
> Then we would have geronimo.deployment and
> geronimo.deploy which
> do very different things... We could go with
> "appdeploy" or something;
> I'm just having trouble coming up with anything
> that's better than
> enterprise.deploy but doesn't clash with
> "deployment". Perhaps the
> content currently in "deployment" could be moved to
> a subpackage, and then
> everything could go in subpackages of "deployment"?
>
> Aaron
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: [JSR-88] Which Java Package?
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
What is the purpose of the stuff currently in
deployment? I thought I saw MBean stuff in there...i
was wondering if it was management api (jsr 77)
implementations.
--- Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, James Strachan wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 04:55 am, Aaron
> Mulder wrote:
> > > .enterprise.deploy.provider // the JSR-88
> provider code
> > > .enterprise.deploy.tool // the JSR-88 tool
> code
> > > .enterprise.deploy.server // the back-end
> Geronimo logic that
> > > // is not specific
> to JSR-88
> >
> > How about the above but without the .enterprise?
> Geronimo is an
> > enterprise server so I guess thats not required.
>
> Then we would have geronimo.deployment and
> geronimo.deploy which
> do very different things... We could go with
> "appdeploy" or something;
> I'm just having trouble coming up with anything
> that's better than
> enterprise.deploy but doesn't clash with
> "deployment". Perhaps the
> content currently in "deployment" could be moved to
> a subpackage, and then
> everything could go in subpackages of "deployment"?
>
> Aaron
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: [JSR-88] Which Java Package?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, James Strachan wrote:
> On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 04:55 am, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > .enterprise.deploy.provider // the JSR-88 provider code
> > .enterprise.deploy.tool // the JSR-88 tool code
> > .enterprise.deploy.server // the back-end Geronimo logic that
> > // is not specific to JSR-88
>
> How about the above but without the .enterprise? Geronimo is an
> enterprise server so I guess thats not required.
Then we would have geronimo.deployment and geronimo.deploy which
do very different things... We could go with "appdeploy" or something;
I'm just having trouble coming up with anything that's better than
enterprise.deploy but doesn't clash with "deployment". Perhaps the
content currently in "deployment" could be moved to a subpackage, and then
everything could go in subpackages of "deployment"?
Aaron
Re: [JSR-88] Which Java Package?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 04:55 am, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I'm fine with .server and .tool, but I don't think .common is
> necessarily right for the other stuff. I guess by "the other stuff",
> I'm
> thinking of any kind of "back end logic" responsible for doing stuff on
> the server side, that won't be exposed to the client.
>
> Just saying that though makes me think that perhaps ".server"
> doesn't mean what we want it to mean. Perhaps they should be
>
> .enterprise.deploy.provider // the JSR-88 provider code
> .enterprise.deploy.tool // the JSR-88 tool code
> .enterprise.deploy.server // the back-end Geronimo logic that
> // is not specific to JSR-88
>
> My only concern is that if we have any subpackages, a 7-part
> package name is kind of gross.
How about the above but without the .enterprise? Geronimo is an
enterprise server so I guess thats not required.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [JSR-88] Which Java Package?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@coredevelopers.net>.
I would not worry too much about it right now. If you want to code
something, pick a package and go with it. Eventually we will be
re-packaging to better reflect the modular nature of the system, where
the module name is the final suffix of the package... like common is
org.apache.geronimo.common and such.
Anyways, just pick something for now and we will worry about it later.
--jason
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I'm fine with .server and .tool, but I don't think .common is
> necessarily right for the other stuff. I guess by "the other stuff",
> I'm
> thinking of any kind of "back end logic" responsible for doing stuff on
> the server side, that won't be exposed to the client.
>
> Just saying that though makes me think that perhaps ".server"
> doesn't mean what we want it to mean. Perhaps they should be
>
> .enterprise.deploy.provider // the JSR-88 provider code
> .enterprise.deploy.tool // the JSR-88 tool code
> .enterprise.deploy.server // the back-end Geronimo logic that
> // is not specific to JSR-88
>
> My only concern is that if we have any subpackages, a 7-part
> package name is kind of gross.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jonathan Duty wrote:
>> How about
>>
>> geronimo.enterprise.deploy.common
>> geronimo.enterprise.deploy.server
>> geronimo.enterprise.deploy.tool
>>
>> Let me know if I'm totally not understanding things (which could very
>> well be). ~Jonathan
>
Re: [JSR-88] Which Java Package?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I'm fine with .server and .tool, but I don't think .common is
necessarily right for the other stuff. I guess by "the other stuff", I'm
thinking of any kind of "back end logic" responsible for doing stuff on
the server side, that won't be exposed to the client.
Just saying that though makes me think that perhaps ".server"
doesn't mean what we want it to mean. Perhaps they should be
.enterprise.deploy.provider // the JSR-88 provider code
.enterprise.deploy.tool // the JSR-88 tool code
.enterprise.deploy.server // the back-end Geronimo logic that
// is not specific to JSR-88
My only concern is that if we have any subpackages, a 7-part
package name is kind of gross.
Aaron
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> How about
>
> geronimo.enterprise.deploy.common
> geronimo.enterprise.deploy.server
> geronimo.enterprise.deploy.tool
>
> Let me know if I'm totally not understanding things (which could very
> well be). ~Jonathan
Re: [JSR-88] Which Java Package?
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
How about
geronimo.enterprise.deploy.common
geronimo.enterprise.deploy.server
geronimo.enterprise.deploy.tool
Let me know if I'm totally not understanding things (which could very well be).
~Jonathan
Chris Opacki wrote:
>thats what i was thinking. I'ld like to give it a
>start as well. Need a hand? I was going over the specs
>some more...and some of the other specs. I'm hitting
>the sack for now..
>
>--- Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
>wrote:
>
>
>> What Java package should be used as a parent for
>>the JSR-88 and
>>related code, including the server impl, tool impl,
>>and the actual J2EE
>>deployment code? ...geronimo.deployer jumps to
>>mind, but that seems to be
>>taken by the things that deploys server components,
>>not something related
>>to application components. Perhaps
>>...geronimo.enterprise.deploy in
>>lines with javax.enterprise.deploy?
>>
>> In any case, I'm going to start work on the server
>>side, since it
>>sounds like others are ready to start on the tool
>>side.
>>
>>Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>