staged deployment

[Mike Salisbury <mp...@yahoo.com>]

Let me start by saying I'm new to Phoenix so there may
well be a better place to get this answered, but I
haven't been able to find it.

I've got a problem with the bootstrapping sequence
used in Phoenix.  There are several layers to my
application, the bottom of which is a message
transport layer.  I want the higher layers to use the
transport layer during their initialization.

My problem is that the transport blocks have not been
completely initialized and started by the time the
next layer tries to initialize itself.  As a
consequence, their initialization fails and nothing at
all runs.  It seems to me that what I need is some
sort of staged deployment, where one layer of blocks
is completely initialized before the next layer is
constructed.  It seems a bit like multiple
applications, except that the higher layers need
access to the lower blocks, and I don't know how to
share blocks across applications.

So is this the wrong way to do things?  Is there a way
to do what I want?  Or should I just look into some
other solution for now?

Thanks.

-- Mike Salisbury

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: staged deployment

[Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>]

Mike,

start() from Startable is called after initialize() from Initialzable. 
 You could leverage that to make sure than your server has completed 
setup to a certain level, before the next stage begins.

Re sharing blocks across apps (sars?), hmmm.. .. are your layers made 
with adjacent sars?  or truly a layer inside one sar like JAMES, EOB 
etc. (container in container).

-ph

>Let me start by saying I'm new to Phoenix so there may
>well be a better place to get this answered, but I
>haven't been able to find it.
>
>I've got a problem with the bootstrapping sequence
>used in Phoenix.  There are several layers to my
>application, the bottom of which is a message
>transport layer.  I want the higher layers to use the
>transport layer during their initialization.
>
>My problem is that the transport blocks have not been
>completely initialized and started by the time the
>next layer tries to initialize itself.  As a
>consequence, their initialization fails and nothing at
>all runs.  It seems to me that what I need is some
>sort of staged deployment, where one layer of blocks
>is completely initialized before the next layer is
>constructed.  It seems a bit like multiple
>applications, except that the higher layers need
>access to the lower blocks, and I don't know how to
>share blocks across applications.
>
>So is this the wrong way to do things?  Is there a way
>to do what I want?  Or should I just look into some
>other solution for now?
>
>Thanks.
>
>-- Mike Salisbury
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
>http://faith.yahoo.com
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>  
>




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: staged deployment

[Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>]

On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 08:41  PM, Mike Salisbury wrote:
> I've got a problem with the bootstrapping sequence
> used in Phoenix.  There are several layers to my
> application, the bottom of which is a message
> transport layer.  I want the higher layers to use the
> transport layer during their initialization.

How are you currently utilizing block dependencies and the 
Initializable interface?

I would do two things:

1) Make each block implement Initializable and perform all init in 
there. Don't exit the method until you are initialized.

2) Make each upper-layer block have a dependency upon lower-layer 
blocks that it needs. This can be stacked. So 1 depends on 2 which 
depends on 3. You don't need a direct dependency between 1 and 3.

If this is all old-hat and you're already doing it, I apologize. 
Otherwise, does it make sense? Is it similar to how you are currently 
implementing things?
-pete

-- 
peter royal -> proyal@apache.org


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>