You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2004/09/26 20:43:11 UTC
Re: svn commit: rev 47239 AND gbeans in geronimo-application missing
After a very quick review of some of these changes...
This breaks a bunch of stuff.
Why isn't ApplicationInfo a subclass of Module? I think this would be
the quickest path to fixing the missing gbean handling and improve
clarity.
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 26, 2004, at 10:41 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2004, at 3:55 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> This might be moving in a good direction overall, but one aspect
>>> totally sucks, namely that in the ModuleBuilder interface in the
>>> Module createModule(String name, Object planFile, JarFile
>>> moduleFile, URL specDDUrl, String targetPath) throws
>>> DeploymentException;
>>> method the planFile can be either a File or an XmlObject from an
>>> embedded plan.
>>>
>>> Personally I think at this point passing XmlObjects around rather
>>> than file-like objects is a better idea.
>>
>> The planFile parameter can either be a File, XmlBean Object or null.
>> I thought about parsing the file directly in the EarConfigBuilder,
>> but that would require the builder to know about all the XmlBeans
>> schemas used in module deployers (or XmlBeans parses it into a
>> typeless thing that looks like a DOM).
>
> As the recent update to the geronimo-application.xsd shows, the module
> builders all have to accept untyped XmlObjects anyway from embedded
> vendor dds. Forcing them to deal with Files as well is IMO a bad
> idea.
>
>> I prefer to simply pass the location through to the module builder
>> so it can handle it like it does for a standalone module with an
>> external plan (6 one way, half a dozen the other)....
>
> The EARConfigBuilder can and IMNSHO should be reading all external
> plans into an untyped XmlObject first anyway.
>
> Anyway I'll have to look into the rest of these changes... any
> simplification is good. Maybe we could do something like wrapping the
> plan in a somewhat typed object that gets the contents from variable
> locations, somewhat like the xslt Source idea.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>>
>> -dain
>>
>
Re: svn commit: rev 47239 AND gbeans in geronimo-application missing
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>.
On Sep 26, 2004, at 11:43 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> After a very quick review of some of these changes...
>
> This breaks a bunch of stuff.
Can you be a bit more specific?
> Why isn't ApplicationInfo a subclass of Module?
It is simply different. An ApplicationInfo object represents an
application.xml file which has modules. I see no reason to make it a
subclass.
> I think this would be the quickest path to fixing the missing gbean
> handling and improve clarity.
What missing gbean handling?
-dain