You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Denes <de...@ppgia.pucpr.br> on 2003/08/11 07:03:15 UTC
J2EE deployment verifier
Hi Folks,
I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
project.
Some questions:
1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
Thanks
Denes
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
Think of it terms of a relative or a close friend....
If a particular guest is despised, or loathed by someone you trust...do you
really want to let them into your house? Why not just go with your gut and
shun the idea of having them over for crackers and tea?
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 02:22 pm, Chris Opacki wrote:
> My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> verifier would be close friends.
> ;)
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > True
> > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > whether or not a given unit of
> > deployment
> > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >
> > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > weston??
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> > a completely different
> > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> > one at least in terms of
> > the way we are thinking about this module?
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> >
> > 1.4 spec
> >
> > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> >
> > specify the correct
> >
> > > version
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> >
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> >
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > > relations between deployable components and
> >
> > objects in
> >
> > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> >
> > interesting
> >
> > > read.
> > >
> > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> >
> > using
> >
> > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> >
> > verifier as
> >
> > > > Input Process Output
> > > >
> > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error
> >
> > log
> >
> > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > RAR rules
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> >
> > it
> >
> > > > will get into the
> > > > geronimo frwk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> >
> > verifier
> >
> > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> >
> > even
> >
> > > > be a standalone module
> > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > archive before ever even
> > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> >
> > your
> >
> > > > tty when you go to
> > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > drawback....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> >
> > Price
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> >
> > at
> >
> > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > >
> > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> >
> > not
> >
> > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > >
> > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > >
> > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > >
> > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> >
> > that
> >
> > > > when applied to a
> > > >
> > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> >
> > met
> >
> > > > for the archive to be
> > > >
> > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> >
> > watchdog
> >
> > > > that prevents archives
> > > >
> > > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> >
> > i
> >
> > > > started thinking abt this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier..
> > > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> >
> > rule
> >
> > > > engines for designing
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > >
> > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > > To: Srihari S;
> >
> > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> >
> > reasons:
> > > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > rules engine where
> > > > certain
> > > >
> > > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > > >
> > > > successful "deployment". The most
> > > >
> > > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > make this module
> > > >
> > > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> >
> > all
> >
> > > > know that specifications
> > > >
> > > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > > >
> > > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
No, I think they will be....
But I see the process as two events....
1) Verify the archive, if verification fails do not proceed.
2) Verification has succeeded, therefore we know the archive is at least
"correct" in terms of satisfying the specification constraints....now go
forth and deploy young man!
Then you get the stack traces....:-)
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 02:22 pm, Chris Opacki wrote:
> My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> verifier would be close friends.
> ;)
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > True
> > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > whether or not a given unit of
> > deployment
> > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >
> > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > weston??
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> > a completely different
> > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> > one at least in terms of
> > the way we are thinking about this module?
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> >
> > 1.4 spec
> >
> > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> >
> > specify the correct
> >
> > > version
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> >
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> >
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > > relations between deployable components and
> >
> > objects in
> >
> > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> >
> > interesting
> >
> > > read.
> > >
> > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> >
> > using
> >
> > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> >
> > verifier as
> >
> > > > Input Process Output
> > > >
> > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error
> >
> > log
> >
> > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > RAR rules
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> >
> > it
> >
> > > > will get into the
> > > > geronimo frwk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> >
> > verifier
> >
> > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> >
> > even
> >
> > > > be a standalone module
> > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > archive before ever even
> > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> >
> > your
> >
> > > > tty when you go to
> > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > drawback....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> >
> > Price
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> >
> > at
> >
> > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > >
> > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> >
> > not
> >
> > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > >
> > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > >
> > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > >
> > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> >
> > that
> >
> > > > when applied to a
> > > >
> > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> >
> > met
> >
> > > > for the archive to be
> > > >
> > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> >
> > watchdog
> >
> > > > that prevents archives
> > > >
> > > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> >
> > i
> >
> > > > started thinking abt this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier..
> > > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> >
> > rule
> >
> > > > engines for designing
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > >
> > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > > To: Srihari S;
> >
> > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> >
> > reasons:
> > > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > rules engine where
> > > > certain
> > > >
> > > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > > >
> > > > successful "deployment". The most
> > > >
> > > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > make this module
> > > >
> > > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> >
> > all
> >
> > > > know that specifications
> > > >
> > > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > > >
> > > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Bobby Abraham <ba...@cmusa.cc>.
One thing to note is that verfication done at compile time can only
check for some of the typical problems.
It can include checking for the following type of problems
- EJB meta data errors
- Check that EJB method signatures conform to spec and matche the EJB
meta data
- EJBQL is well formed and parsable
What is difficult to verify during compile is the following
- A valid container specific O/R mapping. ie for a RDBMS does the table
and columns a entity maps to exist and do they have the correct
data-types. Binding the datasource referenced inside the application to
an actual, realized, datasource is often done outside the .ear file as
part of the container configuration.
I believe that jboss only reports these type of errors at runtime when
the entity is used for the first time. Having an application fail
deployment is a much better solution.
The solution IMHO is a simple interface for each check performed and
then a subset of the total checks can be run at compile time and a
complete set of checks done at deploy time.
If the checks are modular and independent then the verifier will scale
well as the complexity increases.
Lastly I believe the checks should always show, where possible, the
exact paragraph in the J2EE spec that has been violated.
- bobby
Weston M. Price wrote:
> I agree completely. I think that we are talking about are two modules that are
> close cousins. The verification manager is again, the "front-line" of defense
> for the deployment manager. I would assume the deployment manager would deal
> with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints, incorrect classfile versions
> etc. while the verfication manager will handle actual semantic fallibities in
> the deployment descriptors based upon the existing specifications.
>
> The reason I mentioned a seperate verification module was that I would
> developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine that given a deployment
> platform could validate their archive before ever trying to drop it in the
> chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to the fact that XML
> descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they are "correct" at compile
> time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my opion would be to
> provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the archive during compile
> time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
--
Bobby Abraham
bobby@thoughtfulpeople.com
pgp key at http://www.thoughtfulpeople.com/pgp/bobby.pgp
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
Plus,
We could create hooks into this module for not only ant, but JEdit,
Eclipse, whatever gui tool they create for Gerinomo and other IDE tools.
~Jonathan
Jonathan Duty
Software Developer - eWashtenaw
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:50 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
The neat thing is that we can actually conceive of pluggable
verification
modules:
WebSphere
WebLogic
JBoss
Incorporating these particular appservers idiosyncracies and allowing
for
particular extensions....all this is down the road of course...but you
see
what I mean.
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 02:54 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$ tool to have as a
> developer.
>
> Plus, the deployment team could use it if they want to verify the
> archive schema before they start deploying it.
>
> Count me in!
> ~Jonathan
>
>
> Jonathan Duty
> Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> I agree completely. I think what we are talking about are two modules
> that are
> close cousins. The verification manager is again, the "front-line" of
> defense
> for the deployment manager. I would assume the deployment manager
would
> deal
> with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints, incorrect classfile
> versions
> etc. while the verfication manager will handle actual semantic
> fallibities in
> the deployment descriptors based upon the existing specifications.
>
> The reason I mentioned a seperate verification module was that I
> would
> developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine that given a
deployment
>
> platform could validate their archive before ever trying to drop it in
> the
> chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to the fact that XML
> descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they are "correct" at
> compile
> time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my opion would be to
> provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the archive during
> compile
> time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this verifier, even as a
> > separate module, be a subset of the deploy module? I mean we don't
>
> want
>
> > to deploy something that the J2EE server will not accept.
> >
> > Maybe these 2 groups should work close together.
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> > verifier would be close friends.
> > ;)
> >
> > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > > True
> > > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > > whether or not a given unit of
> > > deployment
> > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > >
> > > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > > weston??
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> > > a completely different
> > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> > > one at least in terms of
> > > the way we are thinking about this module?
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> > >
> > > 1.4 spec
> > >
> > > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> > >
> > > specify the correct
> > >
> > > > version
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > >
> > > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > >
> > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > > > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > > > relations between deployable components and
> > >
> > > objects in
> > >
> > > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> > >
> > > interesting
> > >
> > > > read.
> > > >
> > > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> > >
> > > using
> > >
> > > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> > >
> > > verifier as
> > >
> > > > > Input Process Output
> > > > >
> > > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK
>
> with
>
> > error
> >
> > > log
> > >
> > > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > > RAR rules
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> > >
> > > it
> > >
> > > > > will get into the
> > > > > geronimo frwk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> > >
> > > verifier
> > >
> > > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> > >
> > > even
> > >
> > > > > be a standalone module
> > > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > > archive before ever even
> > > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> > >
> > > your
> > >
> > > > > tty when you go to
> > > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > > drawback....
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> > >
> > > Price
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> > >
> > > at
> > >
> > > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > > >
> > > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> > >
> > > of
> > >
> > > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > > that
> > > > >
> > > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> > >
> > > not
> > >
> > > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > > >
> > > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > > >
> > > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > > >
> > > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> > >
> > > that
> > >
> > > > > when applied to a
> > > > >
> > > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> > >
> > > met
> > >
> > > > > for the archive to be
> > > > >
> > > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> > >
> > > watchdog
> > >
> > > > > that prevents archives
> > > > >
> > > > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Weston
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> > >
> > > i
> > >
> > > > > started thinking abt this
> > > > >
> > > > > > > verifier..
> > > > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> > >
> > > rule
> > >
> > > > > engines for designing
> > > > > this
> > > > >
> > > > > > > verifier?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > > >
> > > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > > > To: Srihari S;
> > >
> > > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> > >
> > > reasons:
> > > > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> > >
> > > of
> > >
> > > > > rules engine where
> > > > > certain
> > > > >
> > > > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > > > >
> > > > > successful "deployment". The most
> > > > >
> > > > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > > make this module
> > > > >
> > > > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> > >
> > > all
> > >
> > > > > know that specifications
> > > > >
> > > > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > > > >
> > > > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
The neat thing is that we can actually conceive of pluggable verification
modules:
WebSphere
WebLogic
JBoss
Incorporating these particular appservers idiosyncracies and allowing for
particular extensions....all this is down the road of course...but you see
what I mean.
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 02:54 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$ tool to have as a
> developer.
>
> Plus, the deployment team could use it if they want to verify the
> archive schema before they start deploying it.
>
> Count me in!
> ~Jonathan
>
>
> Jonathan Duty
> Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> I agree completely. I think what we are talking about are two modules
> that are
> close cousins. The verification manager is again, the "front-line" of
> defense
> for the deployment manager. I would assume the deployment manager would
> deal
> with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints, incorrect classfile
> versions
> etc. while the verfication manager will handle actual semantic
> fallibities in
> the deployment descriptors based upon the existing specifications.
>
> The reason I mentioned a seperate verification module was that I
> would
> developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine that given a deployment
>
> platform could validate their archive before ever trying to drop it in
> the
> chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to the fact that XML
> descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they are "correct" at
> compile
> time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my opion would be to
> provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the archive during
> compile
> time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this verifier, even as a
> > separate module, be a subset of the deploy module? I mean we don't
>
> want
>
> > to deploy something that the J2EE server will not accept.
> >
> > Maybe these 2 groups should work close together.
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> > verifier would be close friends.
> > ;)
> >
> > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > > True
> > > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > > whether or not a given unit of
> > > deployment
> > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > >
> > > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > > weston??
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> > > a completely different
> > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> > > one at least in terms of
> > > the way we are thinking about this module?
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> > >
> > > 1.4 spec
> > >
> > > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> > >
> > > specify the correct
> > >
> > > > version
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > >
> > > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > >
> > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > > > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > > > relations between deployable components and
> > >
> > > objects in
> > >
> > > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> > >
> > > interesting
> > >
> > > > read.
> > > >
> > > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> > >
> > > using
> > >
> > > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> > >
> > > verifier as
> > >
> > > > > Input Process Output
> > > > >
> > > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK
>
> with
>
> > error
> >
> > > log
> > >
> > > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > > RAR rules
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> > >
> > > it
> > >
> > > > > will get into the
> > > > > geronimo frwk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> > >
> > > verifier
> > >
> > > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> > >
> > > even
> > >
> > > > > be a standalone module
> > > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > > archive before ever even
> > > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> > >
> > > your
> > >
> > > > > tty when you go to
> > > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > > drawback....
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> > >
> > > Price
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> > >
> > > at
> > >
> > > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > > >
> > > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> > >
> > > of
> > >
> > > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > > that
> > > > >
> > > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> > >
> > > not
> > >
> > > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > > >
> > > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > > >
> > > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > > >
> > > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> > >
> > > that
> > >
> > > > > when applied to a
> > > > >
> > > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> > >
> > > met
> > >
> > > > > for the archive to be
> > > > >
> > > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> > >
> > > watchdog
> > >
> > > > > that prevents archives
> > > > >
> > > > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Weston
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> > >
> > > i
> > >
> > > > > started thinking abt this
> > > > >
> > > > > > > verifier..
> > > > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> > >
> > > rule
> > >
> > > > > engines for designing
> > > > > this
> > > > >
> > > > > > > verifier?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > > >
> > > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > > > To: Srihari S;
> > >
> > > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> > >
> > > reasons:
> > > > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> > >
> > > of
> > >
> > > > > rules engine where
> > > > > certain
> > > > >
> > > > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > > > >
> > > > > successful "deployment". The most
> > > > >
> > > > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > > make this module
> > > > >
> > > > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> > >
> > > all
> > >
> > > > > know that specifications
> > > > >
> > > > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > > > >
> > > > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
It is an api, but it has been described in an object
model view. The relationships between interfaces has
been clarified. The folowing are interfaces that must
be implemented.
DeployableObject - represent an EAR, WAR, RAR, JAR etc
J2eeApplicationObject - represent an EAR...a speical
type of deployableobject
DDBean represent half or part of a DD
DDBeanRoot - the topmost part of a DD.
There are a few others. An XPathListener and an
XPathEvent and some exceptions.
Maybe this will give you an idea of the relationships
between the objects that must be implemented. The
DDBean and DDBeanRoot could be used by both tools.
Leaving the marshalling and unmarshalling of XML data
to the DDObjects. ...maybe...
--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But is it an actual object model or just an API?
> Sorry for my ignorance on
> this, but I haven't had a chance to really get into
> the specs.
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 03:55 pm, Chris Opacki
> wrote:
> > That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> > object model that has been defined in the
> deployment
> > spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> also
> > some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> > both modules might use.
> >
> > --- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > But I do agree that the two teams must work
> closely
> > > together....Chris made an
> > > excellent point in indetifying that there are
> > > certain basic facilities that
> > > we can use together....I think if we can agree
> on a
> > > common object model for
> > > archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> > > probably develop our own
> > > streams, attributes, behavior.....
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> > >
> > > deployer
> > >
> > > > shouldn't run...period...until the verifier
> has
> > > > run...its a good idea that the
> deployableobject
> > >
> > > are
> > >
> > > > build from within a controller that sends them
> to
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > verifier for verification and then to the
> > >
> > > deployer.
> > >
> > > > Something along that lines at a high level. we
> can
> > > > reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> > > >
> > > > --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> a$$
> > > > > tool to have as a
> > > > > developer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plus, the deployment team could use it if
> they
> > >
> > > want
> > >
> > > > > to verify the
> > > > > archive schema before they start deploying
> it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Count me in!
> > > > > ~Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan Duty
> > > > > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree completely. I think what we are
> talking
> > > > > about are two modules
> > > > > that are
> > > > > close cousins. The verification manager is
> > >
> > > again,
> > >
> > > > > the "front-line" of
> > > > > defense
> > > > > for the deployment manager. I would assume
> the
> > > > > deployment manager would
> > > > > deal
> > > > > with critical errors such as
> LinkageConstraints,
> > > > > incorrect classfile
> > > > > versions
> > > > > etc. while the verfication manager will
> handle
> > > > > actual semantic
> > > > > fallibities in
> > > > > the deployment descriptors based upon the
> > >
> > > existing
> > >
> > > > > specifications.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason I mentioned a seperate
> verification
> > > > > module was that I
> > > > > would
> > > > > developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> engine
> > > > > that given a deployment
> > > > >
> > > > > platform could validate their archive before
> > >
> > > ever
> > >
> > > > > trying to drop it in
> > > > > the
> > > > > chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> due
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > > the fact that XML
> > > > > descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> if
> > >
> > > they
> > >
> > > > > are "correct" at
> > > > > compile
> > > > > time. I suppose the biggest win in all of
> this
> > >
> > > in my
> > >
> > > > > opion would be to
> > > > > provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> verify
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > > archive during
> > > > > compile
> > > > > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> Duty
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> this
> > > > >
> > > > > verifier, even as a
> > > > >
> > > > > > separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> > >
> > > module?
> > >
> > > > > I mean we don't
> > > > > want
> > > > >
> > > > > > to deploy something that the J2EE server
> will
> > >
> > > not
> > >
> > > > > accept.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> > >
> > > together.
> > >
> > > > > > ~Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Chris Opacki
> > >
> > > [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
But is it an actual object model or just an API? Sorry for my ignorance on
this, but I haven't had a chance to really get into the specs.
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 03:55 pm, Chris Opacki wrote:
> That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> object model that has been defined in the deployment
> spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are also
> some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> both modules might use.
>
> --- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But I do agree that the two teams must work closely
> > together....Chris made an
> > excellent point in indetifying that there are
> > certain basic facilities that
> > we can use together....I think if we can agree on a
> > common object model for
> > archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> > probably develop our own
> > streams, attributes, behavior.....
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> >
> > deployer
> >
> > > shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> > > run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> >
> > are
> >
> > > build from within a controller that sends them to
> >
> > the
> >
> > > verifier for verification and then to the
> >
> > deployer.
> >
> > > Something along that lines at a high level. we can
> > > reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> > >
> > > --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > > > +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$
> > > > tool to have as a
> > > > developer.
> > > >
> > > > Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> >
> > want
> >
> > > > to verify the
> > > > archive schema before they start deploying it.
> > > >
> > > > Count me in!
> > > > ~Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan Duty
> > > > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > > I agree completely. I think what we are talking
> > > > about are two modules
> > > > that are
> > > > close cousins. The verification manager is
> >
> > again,
> >
> > > > the "front-line" of
> > > > defense
> > > > for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > > > deployment manager would
> > > > deal
> > > > with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints,
> > > > incorrect classfile
> > > > versions
> > > > etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > > > actual semantic
> > > > fallibities in
> > > > the deployment descriptors based upon the
> >
> > existing
> >
> > > > specifications.
> > > >
> > > > The reason I mentioned a seperate verification
> > > > module was that I
> > > > would
> > > > developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine
> > > > that given a deployment
> > > >
> > > > platform could validate their archive before
> >
> > ever
> >
> > > > trying to drop it in
> > > > the
> > > > chute. This would save a lot of time largely due
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > the fact that XML
> > > > descriptors are not typed and you don't know if
> >
> > they
> >
> > > > are "correct" at
> > > > compile
> > > > time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> >
> > in my
> >
> > > > opion would be to
> > > > provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > archive during
> > > > compile
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this
> > > >
> > > > verifier, even as a
> > > >
> > > > > separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> >
> > module?
> >
> > > > I mean we don't
> > > > want
> > > >
> > > > > to deploy something that the J2EE server will
> >
> > not
> >
> > > > accept.
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> >
> > together.
> >
> > > > > ~Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chris Opacki
> >
> > [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > > verifier would be close friends.
> > > > > ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > True
> > > > > > Our module is just going to check and
> >
> > declare
> >
> > > > > > whether or not a given unit of
> > > > > > deployment
> > > > > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > > > > Building this unit will be our
> >
> > mission..right
> >
> > > > > > weston??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > >
> > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And even further, let's clarify the
> >
> > verification
> >
> > > > is
> > > >
> > > > > > a completely different
> > > > > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct
> >
> > on
> >
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > > > > one at least in terms of
> > > > > > the way we are thinking about this module?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Weston
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > j2ee
> > > >
> > > > > > 1.4 spec
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > lets have a common understanding on
> >
> > this...u
> >
> > > > cud
> > > >
> > > > > > specify the correct
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Chris Opacki
> > > >
> > > > [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
I'm here. Can we use the J2EE Deployment Manager Thread. My email
client is getting trashed by this one.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Srihari S wrote:
>chris, jonathan, weston...anybody there
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:50 AM
>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
>here here
>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I was thinking. After developing this module, we
>>will all be very
>>versed in the J2EE Deployment Specs. Our team could
>>have 3 phases:
>>
>>1) research and development of Verification Module
>>
>>2) development of Deployment module
>>
>>3) Development of Deployment Manager
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>>
>>~Jonathan
>>
>>denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I agree with Weston on the modules separation:
>>>
>>>I`m realy focused on module three. So I would like
>>>
>>>
>>to work more closely on
>>
>>
>>>that. Wish to help on others modules too, but I`m
>>>
>>>
>>already working on the
>>
>>
>>>verifier... I will have something more tangeable
>>>
>>>
>>really soon, assuming that the
>>
>>
>>>architecture that I described earlier is ok. Which
>>>
>>>
>>is best to show the
>>
>>
>>>interfaces: commented source code or a gif with the
>>>
>>>
>>class diagram, or both?
>>
>>
>>>I`m not familiar with apache`s development process,
>>>
>>>
>>but I`m assuming that I
>>
>>
>>>will submit the interfaces for approval, do the
>>>
>>>
>>changes that shows necessary
>>
>>
>>>and then proceed to implement something to prove
>>>
>>>
>>that works. Is that correct?
>>
>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Denes
>>>
>>>Citando "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position
>>>>
>>>>
>>on this? I am not sure how
>>
>>
>>>>the structure is going to work. Basically I am
>>>>
>>>>
>>thinking in these terms:
>>
>>
>>>>Module One: common
>>>> Source that is applicable to both the deployment
>>>>
>>>>
>>module and the
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>verification
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>service (JVXS) Included here would be all
>>>>
>>>>
>>appropriate interfaces to be
>>
>>
>>>>compliant with J2EE specifications. The
>>>>
>>>>
>>DeploymentManager would be included
>>
>>
>>>>in this module as well.
>>>>
>>>>Module Two:
>>>> Deployment
>>>>
>>>>Module Three:
>>>> Verification
>>>>
>>>>I think we can start another module under
>>>>
>>>>
>>CVS.....I don't have committing
>>
>>
>>>>rights on Geronimo....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way
>>>>
>>>>
>>around all this stuff. If
>>
>>
>>>>we
>>>>can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space
>>>>
>>>>
>>for code, docs, scripts,
>>
>>
>>>>models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat
>>>>
>>>>
>>slow (sigh...satellite no
>>
>>
>>>>less....never live in the woods dudes)....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Weston
>>>>
>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty
>>>>
>>>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>and get started. Any
>>
>>
>>>>>ideas for planning?
>>>>>
>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Right on dude....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You nailed it....especially in terms of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>relationship between the
>>
>>
>>>>>>controller and the two...well at this point we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>will call them
>>
>>
>>>>>>services....The "manager" cooridinates the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>interaction between the
>>
>>
>>>>>>two...I am of the personal mind that the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>verification service should
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>have
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>no knowledge (at least in terms of hard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>references, we will share code)
>>
>>
>>>>>>of the deployment service. This would allow the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>modules to be
>>
>>
>>>>>>distinct....this would naturally dictate a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>common set of classes shared
>>
>>
>>>>>>between us which could possibly be it's own
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>module, perhaps the objects
>>
>>
>>>>>>implementing the javax interfaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>tried to draw what you
>>
>>
>>>>>>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>your vision?
>>
>>
>>>>>>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>out also.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>manager (as Chris
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>alluded
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>to earlier this morning). The manager would be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>responsible for
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>coordinating the interaction between the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>verification engine and the
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>deployment engine....sort of a controller,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>that way the two can be
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>loosely coupled relying on an external agent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>to provide an higher
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>level
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>of service, in this case the complete
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>deployment of a J2EE archive.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>interface
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
>>>>>>>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>ensuring
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>mapping vs
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>databases and relational mappings, or any
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>such other
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>to come
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>up with a list potential technical problems
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>we could
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>file.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>Labeeb Syed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
chris, jonathan, weston...anybody there
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:50 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
here here
--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> I was thinking. After developing this module, we
> will all be very
> versed in the J2EE Deployment Specs. Our team could
> have 3 phases:
>
> 1) research and development of Verification Module
>
> 2) development of Deployment module
>
> 3) Development of Deployment Manager
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> ~Jonathan
>
> denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
>
> >I agree with Weston on the modules separation:
> >
> >I`m realy focused on module three. So I would like
> to work more closely on
> >that. Wish to help on others modules too, but I`m
> already working on the
> >verifier... I will have something more tangeable
> really soon, assuming that the
> >architecture that I described earlier is ok. Which
> is best to show the
> >interfaces: commented source code or a gif with the
> class diagram, or both?
> >
> >I`m not familiar with apache`s development process,
> but I`m assuming that I
> >will submit the interfaces for approval, do the
> changes that shows necessary
> >and then proceed to implement something to prove
> that works. Is that correct?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Denes
> >
> >Citando "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position
> on this? I am not sure how
> >>
> >>the structure is going to work. Basically I am
> thinking in these terms:
> >>
> >>Module One: common
> >> Source that is applicable to both the deployment
> module and the
> >>
> >>
> >verification
> >
> >
> >>service (JVXS) Included here would be all
> appropriate interfaces to be
> >>compliant with J2EE specifications. The
> DeploymentManager would be included
> >>
> >>in this module as well.
> >>
> >>Module Two:
> >> Deployment
> >>
> >>Module Three:
> >> Verification
> >>
> >>I think we can start another module under
> CVS.....I don't have committing
> >>rights on Geronimo....
> >>
> >>
> >>I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way
> around all this stuff. If
> >>we
> >>can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space
> for code, docs, scripts,
> >>
> >>models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat
> slow (sigh...satellite no
> >>less....never live in the woods dudes)....
> >>
> >>
> >>Weston
> >>
> >>On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated
> and get started. Any
> >>>ideas for planning?
> >>>
> >>>~Jonathan
> >>>
> >>>Weston M. Price wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Right on dude....
> >>>>
> >>>>You nailed it....especially in terms of the
> relationship between the
> >>>>controller and the two...well at this point we
> will call them
> >>>>services....The "manager" cooridinates the
> interaction between the
> >>>>two...I am of the personal mind that the
> verification service should
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>have
> >>
> >>
> >>>>no knowledge (at least in terms of hard
> references, we will share code)
> >>>>of the deployment service. This would allow the
> modules to be
> >>>>distinct....this would naturally dictate a
> common set of classes shared
> >>>>between us which could possibly be it's own
> module, perhaps the objects
> >>>>implementing the javax interfaces.
> >>>>
> >>>>Weston
> >>>>
> >>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I
> tried to draw what you
> >>>>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of
> your vision?
> >>>>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others
> out also.
> >>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment
> manager (as Chris
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>alluded
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>to earlier this morning). The manager would be
> responsible for
> >>>>>>coordinating the interaction between the
> verification engine and the
> >>>>>>deployment engine....sort of a controller,
> that way the two can be
> >>>>>>loosely coupled relying on an external agent
> to provide an higher
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>level
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>of service, in this case the complete
> deployment of a J2EE archive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to
> interface
> >>>>>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> >>>>>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for
> ensuring
> >>>>>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr
> mapping vs
> >>>>>>>databases and relational mappings, or any
> such other
> >>>>>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like
> to come
> >>>>>>>up with a list potential technical problems
> we could
> >>>>>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD
> file.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Labeeb Syed
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is
> the
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
here here
--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> I was thinking. After developing this module, we
> will all be very
> versed in the J2EE Deployment Specs. Our team could
> have 3 phases:
>
> 1) research and development of Verification Module
>
> 2) development of Deployment module
>
> 3) Development of Deployment Manager
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> ~Jonathan
>
> denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
>
> >I agree with Weston on the modules separation:
> >
> >I`m realy focused on module three. So I would like
> to work more closely on
> >that. Wish to help on others modules too, but I`m
> already working on the
> >verifier... I will have something more tangeable
> really soon, assuming that the
> >architecture that I described earlier is ok. Which
> is best to show the
> >interfaces: commented source code or a gif with the
> class diagram, or both?
> >
> >I`m not familiar with apache`s development process,
> but I`m assuming that I
> >will submit the interfaces for approval, do the
> changes that shows necessary
> >and then proceed to implement something to prove
> that works. Is that correct?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Denes
> >
> >Citando "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position
> on this? I am not sure how
> >>
> >>the structure is going to work. Basically I am
> thinking in these terms:
> >>
> >>Module One: common
> >> Source that is applicable to both the deployment
> module and the
> >>
> >>
> >verification
> >
> >
> >>service (JVXS) Included here would be all
> appropriate interfaces to be
> >>compliant with J2EE specifications. The
> DeploymentManager would be included
> >>
> >>in this module as well.
> >>
> >>Module Two:
> >> Deployment
> >>
> >>Module Three:
> >> Verification
> >>
> >>I think we can start another module under
> CVS.....I don't have committing
> >>rights on Geronimo....
> >>
> >>
> >>I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way
> around all this stuff. If
> >>we
> >>can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space
> for code, docs, scripts,
> >>
> >>models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat
> slow (sigh...satellite no
> >>less....never live in the woods dudes)....
> >>
> >>
> >>Weston
> >>
> >>On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated
> and get started. Any
> >>>ideas for planning?
> >>>
> >>>~Jonathan
> >>>
> >>>Weston M. Price wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Right on dude....
> >>>>
> >>>>You nailed it....especially in terms of the
> relationship between the
> >>>>controller and the two...well at this point we
> will call them
> >>>>services....The "manager" cooridinates the
> interaction between the
> >>>>two...I am of the personal mind that the
> verification service should
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>have
> >>
> >>
> >>>>no knowledge (at least in terms of hard
> references, we will share code)
> >>>>of the deployment service. This would allow the
> modules to be
> >>>>distinct....this would naturally dictate a
> common set of classes shared
> >>>>between us which could possibly be it's own
> module, perhaps the objects
> >>>>implementing the javax interfaces.
> >>>>
> >>>>Weston
> >>>>
> >>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I
> tried to draw what you
> >>>>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of
> your vision?
> >>>>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others
> out also.
> >>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment
> manager (as Chris
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>alluded
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>to earlier this morning). The manager would be
> responsible for
> >>>>>>coordinating the interaction between the
> verification engine and the
> >>>>>>deployment engine....sort of a controller,
> that way the two can be
> >>>>>>loosely coupled relying on an external agent
> to provide an higher
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>level
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>of service, in this case the complete
> deployment of a J2EE archive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to
> interface
> >>>>>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> >>>>>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for
> ensuring
> >>>>>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr
> mapping vs
> >>>>>>>databases and relational mappings, or any
> such other
> >>>>>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like
> to come
> >>>>>>>up with a list potential technical problems
> we could
> >>>>>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD
> file.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Labeeb Syed
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is
> the
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
I was thinking. After developing this module, we will all be very
versed in the J2EE Deployment Specs. Our team could have 3 phases:
1) research and development of Verification Module
2) development of Deployment module
3) Development of Deployment Manager
Any thoughts?
~Jonathan
denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
>I agree with Weston on the modules separation:
>
>I`m realy focused on module three. So I would like to work more closely on
>that. Wish to help on others modules too, but I`m already working on the
>verifier... I will have something more tangeable really soon, assuming that the
>architecture that I described earlier is ok. Which is best to show the
>interfaces: commented source code or a gif with the class diagram, or both?
>
>I`m not familiar with apache`s development process, but I`m assuming that I
>will submit the interfaces for approval, do the changes that shows necessary
>and then proceed to implement something to prove that works. Is that correct?
>
>Thanks
>Denes
>
>Citando "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
>>Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position on this? I am not sure how
>>
>>the structure is going to work. Basically I am thinking in these terms:
>>
>>Module One: common
>> Source that is applicable to both the deployment module and the
>>
>>
>verification
>
>
>>service (JVXS) Included here would be all appropriate interfaces to be
>>compliant with J2EE specifications. The DeploymentManager would be included
>>
>>in this module as well.
>>
>>Module Two:
>> Deployment
>>
>>Module Three:
>> Verification
>>
>>I think we can start another module under CVS.....I don't have committing
>>rights on Geronimo....
>>
>>
>>I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way around all this stuff. If
>>we
>>can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space for code, docs, scripts,
>>
>>models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat slow (sigh...satellite no
>>less....never live in the woods dudes)....
>>
>>
>>Weston
>>
>>On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
>>>ideas for planning?
>>>
>>>~Jonathan
>>>
>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Right on dude....
>>>>
>>>>You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
>>>>controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
>>>>services....The "manager" cooridinates the interaction between the
>>>>two...I am of the personal mind that the verification service should
>>>>
>>>>
>>have
>>
>>
>>>>no knowledge (at least in terms of hard references, we will share code)
>>>>of the deployment service. This would allow the modules to be
>>>>distinct....this would naturally dictate a common set of classes shared
>>>>between us which could possibly be it's own module, perhaps the objects
>>>>implementing the javax interfaces.
>>>>
>>>>Weston
>>>>
>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
>>>>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
>>>>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>alluded
>>
>>
>>>>>>to earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
>>>>>>coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and the
>>>>>>deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be
>>>>>>loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>level
>>
>>
>>>>>>of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
>>>>>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
>>>>>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
>>>>>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
>>>>>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
>>>>>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
>>>>>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
>>>>>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Labeeb Syed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
>>>>>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
>>>>>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
>>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
>>>>>>>>both modules might use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>closely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>together....Chris made an
>>>>>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
>>>>>>>>>certain basic facilities that
>>>>>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>common object model for
>>>>>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
>>>>>>>>>probably develop our own
>>>>>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>deployer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
>>>>>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>deployer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a$$
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>tool to have as a
>>>>>>>>>>>developer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>to verify the
>>>>>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Count me in!
>>>>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
>>>>>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>talking
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>about are two modules
>>>>>>>>>>>that are
>>>>>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>again,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
>>>>>>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
>>>>>>>>>>>deployment manager would
>>>>>>>>>>>deal
>>>>>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LinkageConstraints,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
>>>>>>>>>>>versions
>>>>>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
>>>>>>>>>>>actual semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>fallibities in
>>>>>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>specifications.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verification
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>module was that I
>>>>>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>engine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>that given a deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ever
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>due
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>the fact that XML
>>>>>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>if
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>are "correct" at
>>>>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>in my
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>opion would be to
>>>>>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verify
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>archive during
>>>>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Duty
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>module?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I mean we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>accept.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>together.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>declare
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mission..right
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>weston??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>verification
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a completely different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>correct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>=== message truncated ===
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>>>>>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by de...@ppgia.pucpr.br.
I agree with Weston on the modules separation:
I`m realy focused on module three. So I would like to work more closely on
that. Wish to help on others modules too, but I`m already working on the
verifier... I will have something more tangeable really soon, assuming that the
architecture that I described earlier is ok. Which is best to show the
interfaces: commented source code or a gif with the class diagram, or both?
I`m not familiar with apache`s development process, but I`m assuming that I
will submit the interfaces for approval, do the changes that shows necessary
and then proceed to implement something to prove that works. Is that correct?
Thanks
Denes
Citando "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>:
> Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position on this? I am not sure how
>
> the structure is going to work. Basically I am thinking in these terms:
>
> Module One: common
> Source that is applicable to both the deployment module and the
verification
>
> service (JVXS) Included here would be all appropriate interfaces to be
> compliant with J2EE specifications. The DeploymentManager would be included
>
> in this module as well.
>
> Module Two:
> Deployment
>
> Module Three:
> Verification
>
> I think we can start another module under CVS.....I don't have committing
> rights on Geronimo....
>
>
> I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way around all this stuff. If
> we
> can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space for code, docs, scripts,
>
> models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat slow (sigh...satellite no
> less....never live in the woods dudes)....
>
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> > Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
> > ideas for planning?
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > >Right on dude....
> > >
> > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
> > >controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
> > > services....The "manager" cooridinates the interaction between the
> > > two...I am of the personal mind that the verification service should
> have
> > > no knowledge (at least in terms of hard references, we will share code)
> > > of the deployment service. This would allow the modules to be
> > > distinct....this would naturally dictate a common set of classes shared
> > > between us which could possibly be it's own module, perhaps the objects
> > > implementing the javax interfaces.
> > >
> > >Weston
> > >
> > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> > >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
> > >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> > >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
> > >>~Jonathan
> > >>
> > >>Weston M. Price wrote:
> > >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
> alluded
> > >>> to earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
> > >>> coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and the
> > >>> deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be
> > >>> loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher
> level
> > >>> of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
> > >>>
> > >>>Weston
> > >>>
> > >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> > >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> > >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> > >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> > >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> > >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> > >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> > >>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> > >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Labeeb Syed
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> > >>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> > >>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> > >>>>>also
> > >>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> > >>>>>both modules might use.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>closely
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>together....Chris made an
> > >>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> > >>>>>>certain basic facilities that
> > >>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>a
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>common object model for
> > >>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> > >>>>>>probably develop our own
> > >>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>deployer
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> > >>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>are
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>to
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>deployer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>can
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>a$$
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>tool to have as a
> > >>>>>>>>developer.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>want
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>to verify the
> > >>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Count me in!
> > >>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> > >>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>talking
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>about are two modules
> > >>>>>>>>that are
> > >>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>again,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
> > >>>>>>>>defense
> > >>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > >>>>>>>>deployment manager would
> > >>>>>>>>deal
> > >>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>LinkageConstraints,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
> > >>>>>>>>versions
> > >>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > >>>>>>>>actual semantic
> > >>>>>>>>fallibities in
> > >>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>existing
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>specifications.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>verification
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>module was that I
> > >>>>>>>>would
> > >>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>engine
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>that given a deployment
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>ever
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
> > >>>>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>due
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>to
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>the fact that XML
> > >>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>if
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>they
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>are "correct" at
> > >>>>>>>>compile
> > >>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>in my
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>opion would be to
> > >>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>verify
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>archive during
> > >>>>>>>>compile
> > >>>>>>>>time.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Duty
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>this
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>module?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I mean we don't
> > >>>>>>>>want
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>will
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>not
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>accept.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>together.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> > >>>>>>>>>;)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>True
> > >>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>declare
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> > >>>>>>>>>>deployment
> > >>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> > >>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>mission..right
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>weston??
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>verification
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>is
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>a completely different
> > >>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>correct
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>on
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>this
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> > >>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>
> > >>>>=== message truncated ===
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>__________________________________
> > >>>>Do you Yahoo!?
> > >>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > >>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
--
Existem 10 tipos de pessoas: as que entendem binário e as que não.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position on this? I am not sure how
the structure is going to work. Basically I am thinking in these terms:
Module One: common
Source that is applicable to both the deployment module and the verification
service (JVXS) Included here would be all appropriate interfaces to be
compliant with J2EE specifications. The DeploymentManager would be included
in this module as well.
Module Two:
Deployment
Module Three:
Verification
I think we can start another module under CVS.....I don't have committing
rights on Geronimo....
I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way around all this stuff. If we
can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space for code, docs, scripts,
models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat slow (sigh...satellite no
less....never live in the woods dudes)....
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
> ideas for planning?
>
> ~Jonathan
>
> Weston M. Price wrote:
> >Right on dude....
> >
> >You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
> >controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
> > services....The "manager" cooridinates the interaction between the
> > two...I am of the personal mind that the verification service should have
> > no knowledge (at least in terms of hard references, we will share code)
> > of the deployment service. This would allow the modules to be
> > distinct....this would naturally dictate a common set of classes shared
> > between us which could possibly be it's own module, perhaps the objects
> > implementing the javax interfaces.
> >
> >Weston
> >
> >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
> >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
> >>~Jonathan
> >>
> >>Weston M. Price wrote:
> >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded
> >>> to earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
> >>> coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and the
> >>> deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be
> >>> loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher level
> >>> of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
> >>>
> >>>Weston
> >>>
> >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> >>>>
> >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> >>>>
> >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> >>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> >>>>
> >>>>Labeeb Syed
> >>>>
> >>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> >>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> >>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> >>>>>also
> >>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> >>>>>both modules might use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> >>>>>
> >>>>>closely
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>together....Chris made an
> >>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> >>>>>>certain basic facilities that
> >>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> >>>>>
> >>>>>a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>common object model for
> >>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> >>>>>>probably develop our own
> >>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>deployer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> >>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>are
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> >>>>>
> >>>>>to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>deployer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> >>>>>
> >>>>>can
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> >>>>>
> >>>>>a$$
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>tool to have as a
> >>>>>>>>developer.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>want
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>to verify the
> >>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Count me in!
> >>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> >>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> >>>>>
> >>>>>talking
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>about are two modules
> >>>>>>>>that are
> >>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>again,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
> >>>>>>>>defense
> >>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> >>>>>>>>deployment manager would
> >>>>>>>>deal
> >>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
> >>>>>
> >>>>>LinkageConstraints,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
> >>>>>>>>versions
> >>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> >>>>>>>>actual semantic
> >>>>>>>>fallibities in
> >>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>existing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>specifications.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
> >>>>>
> >>>>>verification
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>module was that I
> >>>>>>>>would
> >>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> >>>>>
> >>>>>engine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>that given a deployment
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>ever
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
> >>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> >>>>>
> >>>>>due
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>the fact that XML
> >>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> >>>>>
> >>>>>if
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>they
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>are "correct" at
> >>>>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>in my
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>opion would be to
> >>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> >>>>>
> >>>>>verify
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>archive during
> >>>>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>>>time.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Duty
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> >>>>>
> >>>>>this
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>module?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I mean we don't
> >>>>>>>>want
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> >>>>>
> >>>>>will
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>not
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>accept.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>together.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> >>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> >>>>>>>>>;)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>True
> >>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>declare
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> >>>>>>>>>>deployment
> >>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> >>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>mission..right
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>weston??
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>verification
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>is
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>a completely different
> >>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> >>>>>
> >>>>>correct
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>on
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> >>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Weston
> >>>>
> >>>>=== message truncated ===
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>__________________________________
> >>>>Do you Yahoo!?
> >>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> >>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
Sorry guys...I started a new thread I refered to it as
J2EEDeploymentManager (was J2EE deployment verifier)
My KMail is getting thrashed on this thread...do you guys mind switching over?
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 09:32 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> I just checked the past logs, I believe we are
> standardizing to J2EE v1.4 spec using JDK v1.4.2.
>
> --- Labeeb Syed <an...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Ok, so lets get a final clearance on what we are
> > agreed upon.
> > As Weston mentioned:
> >
> > A.) Verifier will be like a client doing some
> > preliminary checks.
> > B.) Deploy tool will be like a controller
> > interfacing
> > between the verifier and deployer.
> > C.) Deployer will be an implementaion of SPI as per
> > the J2EE v1.0( or 1.1? on JDK v1.4.2?)
> >
> > I believe everyone had agreed upon JDK v1.4.2.
> >
> > - Labeeb
> >
> > --- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > i have the final 1.0 spec.
> > > haven't looked at the date. i found it in j2ee
> > > technologies... it has its own area there.
> > >
> > > --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > > > Agreed. I think the first thing we all need to
> >
> > do
> >
> > > > (atleast those who
> > > > want to do this module) is read the sun
> >
> > deployment
> >
> > > > specs. If we want to
> > > > create something that not only can be used for
> > > > Gerinomo, but for other
> > > > stuff we have to do it with a good understanding
> > >
> > > of
> > >
> > > > what the
> > > > specifications are. Once you've read the specs
> > >
> > > make
> > >
> > > > sure you let others
> > > > know so they know who to go to for questions.
> > >
> > > That
> > >
> > > > will be my homework
> > > > reading tonight.
> > > >
> > > > Deployment Specs
> > > > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=88
> > > >
> > > > Question: I noticed that the most recent docs
> >
> > are
> >
> > > > from July 2002. Has
> > > > nothing change since then?
> > > >
> > > > ~Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > > >I guess first and foremost,
> > > > >
> > > > >IMO
> > > > >
> > > > >Let's have fun with this module...man, we have
> > > >
> > > > banged around on this list all
> > > >
> > > > >day and I believe we have really worked out
> >
> > some
> >
> > > > excellent ideas. I know I
> > > >
> > > > >have gained a great deal by just being
> > > >
> > > > involved...but let's not forget, we
> > > >
> > > > >are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is
> >
> > Apache
> >
> > > > right? Verification and
> > > >
> > > > >deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in
> > > >
> > > > J2EE, in fact, next to Java
> > > >
> > > > >IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything
> >
> > more
> >
> > > > dull....well, save for maybe
> > > >
> > > > >the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore
> >
> > that)...However,
> >
> > > I
> > >
> > > > am pretty pumped about
> > > >
> > > > >this.....I get to develop code with smart
> > >
> > > engaging
> > >
> > > > personalities (some that
> > > >
> > > > >get up before noon) and just have a
> >
> > blast....so,
> >
> > > > let's just take it step by
> > > >
> > > > >step and see what comes up....I have already
> > >
> > > heard
> > >
> > > > about a million ideas that
> > > >
> > > > >are great....the basic module structure could
> >
> > use
> >
> > > > some comments...so let's
> > > >
> > > > >just role with it...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > >Weston
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm,
> > > >
> > > > denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> > > > >>Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet.
> > > >
> > > > Definitively needs help on that...
> > > >
> > > > >>About planning: I think that all of us agreed
> > >
> > > that
> > >
> > > > the deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > > >>will have to be a component: it will have to
> > > >
> > > > receive the ear file from
> > > >
> > > > >>somewhere and do all the tasks without any
> >
> > help
> >
> > > of
> > >
> > > > external entities. This
> > > >
> > > > >>way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > server, we can create an
> > > >
> > > > >>ant task for it, and so on.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Some thoughs about the verifier:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>1. It should have an interface for rules. This
> > > >
> > > > interface will allow each
> > > >
> > > > >>rule implemented in a distinct class (several
> > > >
> > > > rules can be implemented in
> > > >
> > > > >>the same class either). Not sure about
> > >
> > > performance
> > >
> > > > issues yet, but IMO this
> > > >
> > > > >>is the best that can be done to make sure that
> > >
> > > new
> > >
> > > > rules added/removed from
> > > >
> > > > >>specs will be promptly integrated into
> >
> > verifier.
> >
> > > > I'm thinking in Chain of
> > > >
> > > > >>Responsability to manage the rules, but each
> > >
> > > rule
> > >
> > > > will have to say about
> > > >
> > > > >>what domain it`s related (home interfaces
> >
> > rules,
> >
> > > > local interfaces rules,
> > > >
> > > > >>session rules and so on). One "class rule" can
> > >
> > > be
> > >
> > > > related to more than one
> > > >
> > > > >>domain. This will speed up the process, as the
> > > >
> > > > verifies asks only the rules
> > > >
> > > > >>related to the domain that it`s verifying at
> > > >
> > > > moment;
> > > >
> > > > >>2. It should have an interface for expressing
> > > >
> > > > rules violations, like
> > > >
> > > > >>ActionError on Struts. This interface should
> > >
> > > allow
> > >
> > > > to query about what
> > > >
> > > > >>section was violated, the message related to
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > error (with i18n for sure
> > > >
> > > > >>;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way,
> > >
> > > any
> > >
> > > > tool that want to use
> > > >
> > > > >>the validator can get the error lists and
> > > >
> > > > manipulate them as they want; IMO
> > > >
> > > > >>this is better than exceptions because we can
> > > >
> > > > generate several violations
> > > >
> > > > >>at once and is better that string messages
> > >
> > > because
> > >
> > > > gives more flexibility.
> > > >
> > > > >>3. The validator will have to read the
> > > >
> > > > application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> > > >
> > > > >>files to do the job (specific deployment files
> > > >
> > > > like jboss.xml would be
> > > >
> > > > >>interesting but have to be integrated in a
> > >
> > > really
> > >
> > > > modular way). The point
> > > >
> > > > >>is that the server will have to read these
> >
> > file
> >
> > > as
> > >
> > > > well to startup the
> > > >
> > > > >>application. So, the reader should be placed
> >
> > in
> >
> > > a
> > >
> > > > common lib. Do anyone
> > > >
> > > > >>knows if jakarta already have this
> >
> > implemented?
> >
> > > > >>4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed
> > > >
> > > > above, does everyone agrees
> > > >
> > > > >>in using JAXB?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Cheers,
> > > > >>Denes
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > > > >>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub
> >
> > generated
> >
> > > > and get started. Any
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Labeeb Syed <an...@yahoo.com>.
I just checked the past logs, I believe we are
standardizing to J2EE v1.4 spec using JDK v1.4.2.
--- Labeeb Syed <an...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ok, so lets get a final clearance on what we are
> agreed upon.
> As Weston mentioned:
>
> A.) Verifier will be like a client doing some
> preliminary checks.
> B.) Deploy tool will be like a controller
> interfacing
> between the verifier and deployer.
> C.) Deployer will be an implementaion of SPI as per
> the J2EE v1.0( or 1.1? on JDK v1.4.2?)
>
> I believe everyone had agreed upon JDK v1.4.2.
>
> - Labeeb
>
>
> --- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > i have the final 1.0 spec.
> > haven't looked at the date. i found it in j2ee
> > technologies... it has its own area there.
> >
> > --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > > Agreed. I think the first thing we all need to
> do
> > > (atleast those who
> > > want to do this module) is read the sun
> deployment
> > > specs. If we want to
> > > create something that not only can be used for
> > > Gerinomo, but for other
> > > stuff we have to do it with a good understanding
> > of
> > > what the
> > > specifications are. Once you've read the specs
> > make
> > > sure you let others
> > > know so they know who to go to for questions.
> > That
> > > will be my homework
> > > reading tonight.
> > >
> > > Deployment Specs
> > > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=88
> > >
> > > Question: I noticed that the most recent docs
> are
> > > from July 2002. Has
> > > nothing change since then?
> > >
> > > ~Jonathan
> > >
> > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > >
> > > >I guess first and foremost,
> > > >
> > > >IMO
> > > >
> > > >Let's have fun with this module...man, we have
> > > banged around on this list all
> > > >day and I believe we have really worked out
> some
> > > excellent ideas. I know I
> > > >have gained a great deal by just being
> > > involved...but let's not forget, we
> > > >are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is
> Apache
> > > right? Verification and
> > > >deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in
> > > J2EE, in fact, next to Java
> > > >IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything
> more
> > > dull....well, save for maybe
> > > >the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore
> that)...However,
> > I
> > > am pretty pumped about
> > > >this.....I get to develop code with smart
> > engaging
> > > personalities (some that
> > > >get up before noon) and just have a
> blast....so,
> > > let's just take it step by
> > > >step and see what comes up....I have already
> > heard
> > > about a million ideas that
> > > >are great....the basic module structure could
> use
> > > some comments...so let's
> > > >just role with it...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >Weston
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm,
> > > denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet.
> > > Definitively needs help on that...
> > > >>
> > > >>About planning: I think that all of us agreed
> > that
> > > the deployment verifier
> > > >>will have to be a component: it will have to
> > > receive the ear file from
> > > >>somewhere and do all the tasks without any
> help
> > of
> > > external entities. This
> > > >>way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in
> the
> > > server, we can create an
> > > >>ant task for it, and so on.
> > > >>
> > > >>Some thoughs about the verifier:
> > > >>
> > > >>1. It should have an interface for rules. This
> > > interface will allow each
> > > >>rule implemented in a distinct class (several
> > > rules can be implemented in
> > > >>the same class either). Not sure about
> > performance
> > > issues yet, but IMO this
> > > >>is the best that can be done to make sure that
> > new
> > > rules added/removed from
> > > >>specs will be promptly integrated into
> verifier.
> > > I'm thinking in Chain of
> > > >>Responsability to manage the rules, but each
> > rule
> > > will have to say about
> > > >>what domain it`s related (home interfaces
> rules,
> > > local interfaces rules,
> > > >>session rules and so on). One "class rule" can
> > be
> > > related to more than one
> > > >>domain. This will speed up the process, as the
> > > verifies asks only the rules
> > > >>related to the domain that it`s verifying at
> > > moment;
> > > >>
> > > >>2. It should have an interface for expressing
> > > rules violations, like
> > > >>ActionError on Struts. This interface should
> > allow
> > > to query about what
> > > >>section was violated, the message related to
> the
> > > error (with i18n for sure
> > > >>;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way,
> > any
> > > tool that want to use
> > > >>the validator can get the error lists and
> > > manipulate them as they want; IMO
> > > >>this is better than exceptions because we can
> > > generate several violations
> > > >>at once and is better that string messages
> > because
> > > gives more flexibility.
> > > >>
> > > >>3. The validator will have to read the
> > > application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> > > >>files to do the job (specific deployment files
> > > like jboss.xml would be
> > > >>interesting but have to be integrated in a
> > really
> > > modular way). The point
> > > >>is that the server will have to read these
> file
> > as
> > > well to startup the
> > > >>application. So, the reader should be placed
> in
> > a
> > > common lib. Do anyone
> > > >>knows if jakarta already have this
> implemented?
> > > >>
> > > >>4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed
> > > above, does everyone agrees
> > > >>in using JAXB?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Cheers,
> > > >>Denes
> > > >>
> > > >>Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub
> generated
> > > and get started. Any
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Labeeb Syed <an...@yahoo.com>.
Ok, so lets get a final clearance on what we are
agreed upon.
As Weston mentioned:
A.) Verifier will be like a client doing some
preliminary checks.
B.) Deploy tool will be like a controller interfacing
between the verifier and deployer.
C.) Deployer will be an implementaion of SPI as per
the J2EE v1.0( or 1.1? on JDK v1.4.2?)
I believe everyone had agreed upon JDK v1.4.2.
- Labeeb
--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> i have the final 1.0 spec.
> haven't looked at the date. i found it in j2ee
> technologies... it has its own area there.
>
> --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > Agreed. I think the first thing we all need to do
> > (atleast those who
> > want to do this module) is read the sun deployment
> > specs. If we want to
> > create something that not only can be used for
> > Gerinomo, but for other
> > stuff we have to do it with a good understanding
> of
> > what the
> > specifications are. Once you've read the specs
> make
> > sure you let others
> > know so they know who to go to for questions.
> That
> > will be my homework
> > reading tonight.
> >
> > Deployment Specs
> > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=88
> >
> > Question: I noticed that the most recent docs are
> > from July 2002. Has
> > nothing change since then?
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> > Weston M. Price wrote:
> >
> > >I guess first and foremost,
> > >
> > >IMO
> > >
> > >Let's have fun with this module...man, we have
> > banged around on this list all
> > >day and I believe we have really worked out some
> > excellent ideas. I know I
> > >have gained a great deal by just being
> > involved...but let's not forget, we
> > >are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache
> > right? Verification and
> > >deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in
> > J2EE, in fact, next to Java
> > >IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more
> > dull....well, save for maybe
> > >the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore that)...However,
> I
> > am pretty pumped about
> > >this.....I get to develop code with smart
> engaging
> > personalities (some that
> > >get up before noon) and just have a blast....so,
> > let's just take it step by
> > >step and see what comes up....I have already
> heard
> > about a million ideas that
> > >are great....the basic module structure could use
> > some comments...so let's
> > >just role with it...
> > >
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Weston
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm,
> > denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet.
> > Definitively needs help on that...
> > >>
> > >>About planning: I think that all of us agreed
> that
> > the deployment verifier
> > >>will have to be a component: it will have to
> > receive the ear file from
> > >>somewhere and do all the tasks without any help
> of
> > external entities. This
> > >>way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the
> > server, we can create an
> > >>ant task for it, and so on.
> > >>
> > >>Some thoughs about the verifier:
> > >>
> > >>1. It should have an interface for rules. This
> > interface will allow each
> > >>rule implemented in a distinct class (several
> > rules can be implemented in
> > >>the same class either). Not sure about
> performance
> > issues yet, but IMO this
> > >>is the best that can be done to make sure that
> new
> > rules added/removed from
> > >>specs will be promptly integrated into verifier.
> > I'm thinking in Chain of
> > >>Responsability to manage the rules, but each
> rule
> > will have to say about
> > >>what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules,
> > local interfaces rules,
> > >>session rules and so on). One "class rule" can
> be
> > related to more than one
> > >>domain. This will speed up the process, as the
> > verifies asks only the rules
> > >>related to the domain that it`s verifying at
> > moment;
> > >>
> > >>2. It should have an interface for expressing
> > rules violations, like
> > >>ActionError on Struts. This interface should
> allow
> > to query about what
> > >>section was violated, the message related to the
> > error (with i18n for sure
> > >>;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way,
> any
> > tool that want to use
> > >>the validator can get the error lists and
> > manipulate them as they want; IMO
> > >>this is better than exceptions because we can
> > generate several violations
> > >>at once and is better that string messages
> because
> > gives more flexibility.
> > >>
> > >>3. The validator will have to read the
> > application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> > >>files to do the job (specific deployment files
> > like jboss.xml would be
> > >>interesting but have to be integrated in a
> really
> > modular way). The point
> > >>is that the server will have to read these file
> as
> > well to startup the
> > >>application. So, the reader should be placed in
> a
> > common lib. Do anyone
> > >>knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
> > >>
> > >>4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed
> > above, does everyone agrees
> > >>in using JAXB?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Cheers,
> > >>Denes
> > >>
> > >>Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated
> > and get started. Any
> > >>>ideas for planning?
> > >>>
> > >>>~Jonathan
> > >>>
> > >>>Weston M. Price wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Right on dude....
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You nailed it....especially in terms of the
> > relationship between the
> > >>>>controller and the two...well at this point we
> > will call them
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>services....The
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>"manager" cooridinates the interaction between
> > the two...I am of the
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>personal
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>mind that the verification service should have
> > no knowledge (at least in
> > >>>>terms of hard references, we will share code)
> of
> > the deployment service.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>This
> > >>>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
i have the final 1.0 spec.
haven't looked at the date. i found it in j2ee
technologies... it has its own area there.
--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> Agreed. I think the first thing we all need to do
> (atleast those who
> want to do this module) is read the sun deployment
> specs. If we want to
> create something that not only can be used for
> Gerinomo, but for other
> stuff we have to do it with a good understanding of
> what the
> specifications are. Once you've read the specs make
> sure you let others
> know so they know who to go to for questions. That
> will be my homework
> reading tonight.
>
> Deployment Specs
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=88
>
> Question: I noticed that the most recent docs are
> from July 2002. Has
> nothing change since then?
>
> ~Jonathan
>
> Weston M. Price wrote:
>
> >I guess first and foremost,
> >
> >IMO
> >
> >Let's have fun with this module...man, we have
> banged around on this list all
> >day and I believe we have really worked out some
> excellent ideas. I know I
> >have gained a great deal by just being
> involved...but let's not forget, we
> >are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache
> right? Verification and
> >deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in
> J2EE, in fact, next to Java
> >IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more
> dull....well, save for maybe
> >the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore that)...However, I
> am pretty pumped about
> >this.....I get to develop code with smart engaging
> personalities (some that
> >get up before noon) and just have a blast....so,
> let's just take it step by
> >step and see what comes up....I have already heard
> about a million ideas that
> >are great....the basic module structure could use
> some comments...so let's
> >just role with it...
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Weston
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm,
> denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet.
> Definitively needs help on that...
> >>
> >>About planning: I think that all of us agreed that
> the deployment verifier
> >>will have to be a component: it will have to
> receive the ear file from
> >>somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of
> external entities. This
> >>way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the
> server, we can create an
> >>ant task for it, and so on.
> >>
> >>Some thoughs about the verifier:
> >>
> >>1. It should have an interface for rules. This
> interface will allow each
> >>rule implemented in a distinct class (several
> rules can be implemented in
> >>the same class either). Not sure about performance
> issues yet, but IMO this
> >>is the best that can be done to make sure that new
> rules added/removed from
> >>specs will be promptly integrated into verifier.
> I'm thinking in Chain of
> >>Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule
> will have to say about
> >>what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules,
> local interfaces rules,
> >>session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be
> related to more than one
> >>domain. This will speed up the process, as the
> verifies asks only the rules
> >>related to the domain that it`s verifying at
> moment;
> >>
> >>2. It should have an interface for expressing
> rules violations, like
> >>ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow
> to query about what
> >>section was violated, the message related to the
> error (with i18n for sure
> >>;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any
> tool that want to use
> >>the validator can get the error lists and
> manipulate them as they want; IMO
> >>this is better than exceptions because we can
> generate several violations
> >>at once and is better that string messages because
> gives more flexibility.
> >>
> >>3. The validator will have to read the
> application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> >>files to do the job (specific deployment files
> like jboss.xml would be
> >>interesting but have to be integrated in a really
> modular way). The point
> >>is that the server will have to read these file as
> well to startup the
> >>application. So, the reader should be placed in a
> common lib. Do anyone
> >>knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
> >>
> >>4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed
> above, does everyone agrees
> >>in using JAXB?
> >>
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Denes
> >>
> >>Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated
> and get started. Any
> >>>ideas for planning?
> >>>
> >>>~Jonathan
> >>>
> >>>Weston M. Price wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Right on dude....
> >>>>
> >>>>You nailed it....especially in terms of the
> relationship between the
> >>>>controller and the two...well at this point we
> will call them
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>services....The
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"manager" cooridinates the interaction between
> the two...I am of the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>personal
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>mind that the verification service should have
> no knowledge (at least in
> >>>>terms of hard references, we will share code) of
> the deployment service.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>This
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>would allow the modules to be distinct....this
> would naturally dictate a
> >>>>common set of classes shared between us which
> could possibly be it's own
> >>>>module, perhaps the objects implementing the
> javax interfaces.
> >>>>
> >>>>Weston
> >>>>
> >>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I
> tried to draw what you
> >>>>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of
> your vision?
> >>>>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others
> out also.
> >>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
I completely agree to what jonathan says.. i got a print copy of the
deployment specs and read them beyond midnite:)
Once we have gone thru it we can touchbase again...
In a lighter vein....looking at the number mails we exchanged since
yesterday any one will hardly say call deployment
as unsexy:)
just see the momentum man!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:05 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Agreed. I think the first thing we all need to do (atleast those who
want to do this module) is read the sun deployment specs. If we want to
create something that not only can be used for Gerinomo, but for other
stuff we have to do it with a good understanding of what the
specifications are. Once you've read the specs make sure you let others
know so they know who to go to for questions. That will be my homework
reading tonight.
Deployment Specs
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=88
Question: I noticed that the most recent docs are from July 2002. Has
nothing change since then?
~Jonathan
Weston M. Price wrote:
>I guess first and foremost,
>
>IMO
>
>Let's have fun with this module...man, we have banged around on this list
all
>day and I believe we have really worked out some excellent ideas. I know I
>have gained a great deal by just being involved...but let's not forget, we
>are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache right? Verification and
>deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in J2EE, in fact, next to Java
>IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more dull....well, save for
maybe
>the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore that)...However, I am pretty pumped about
>this.....I get to develop code with smart engaging personalities (some that
>get up before noon) and just have a blast....so, let's just take it step by
>step and see what comes up....I have already heard about a million ideas
that
>are great....the basic module structure could use some comments...so let's
>just role with it...
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Weston
>
>
>
>
>
>On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm, denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
>
>
>>Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on
that...
>>
>>About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment verifier
>>will have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from
>>somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of external entities. This
>>way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an
>>ant task for it, and so on.
>>
>>Some thoughs about the verifier:
>>
>>1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each
>>rule implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in
>>the same class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO
this
>>is the best that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed
from
>>specs will be promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of
>>Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about
>>what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules,
>>session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be related to more than one
>>domain. This will speed up the process, as the verifies asks only the
rules
>>related to the domain that it`s verifying at moment;
>>
>>2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like
>>ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what
>>section was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for sure
>>;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use
>>the validator can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want;
IMO
>>this is better than exceptions because we can generate several violations
>>at once and is better that string messages because gives more flexibility.
>>
>>3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
>>files to do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be
>>interesting but have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point
>>is that the server will have to read these file as well to startup the
>>application. So, the reader should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone
>>knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
>>
>>4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees
>>in using JAXB?
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Denes
>>
>>Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
>>
>>
>>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
>>>ideas for planning?
>>>
>>>~Jonathan
>>>
>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Right on dude....
>>>>
>>>>You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
>>>>controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
>>>>
>>>>
>>>services....The
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>personal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least in
>>>>terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment service.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>This
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate a
>>>>common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's own
>>>>module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
>>>>
>>>>Weston
>>>>
>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
>>>>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
>>>>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
>>>>>>alluded
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
>>>>>>coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and the
>>>>>>deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be
>>>>>>loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher
>>>>>>level of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE
>>>>>>archive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
>>>>>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
>>>>>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
>>>>>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
>>>>>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
>>>>>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
>>>>>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
>>>>>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Labeeb Syed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
>>>>>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
>>>>>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
>>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
>>>>>>>>both modules might use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>closely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>together....Chris made an
>>>>>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
>>>>>>>>>certain basic facilities that
>>>>>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>common object model for
>>>>>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
>>>>>>>>>probably develop our own
>>>>>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>deployer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
>>>>>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>deployer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a$$
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>tool to have as a
>>>>>>>>>>>developer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>to verify the
>>>>>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Count me in!
>>>>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
>>>>>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>talking
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>about are two modules
>>>>>>>>>>>that are
>>>>>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>again,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
>>>>>>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
>>>>>>>>>>>deployment manager would
>>>>>>>>>>>deal
>>>>>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LinkageConstraints,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
>>>>>>>>>>>versions
>>>>>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
>>>>>>>>>>>actual semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>fallibities in
>>>>>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>specifications.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verification
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>module was that I
>>>>>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>engine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>that given a deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ever
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>due
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>the fact that XML
>>>>>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>if
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>are "correct" at
>>>>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>in my
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>opion would be to
>>>>>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verify
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>archive during
>>>>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Duty
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>module?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I mean we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>accept.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>together.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>declare
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mission..right
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>weston??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>verification
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a completely different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>correct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>=== message truncated ===
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>>>>>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
Agreed. I think the first thing we all need to do (atleast those who
want to do this module) is read the sun deployment specs. If we want to
create something that not only can be used for Gerinomo, but for other
stuff we have to do it with a good understanding of what the
specifications are. Once you've read the specs make sure you let others
know so they know who to go to for questions. That will be my homework
reading tonight.
Deployment Specs
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=88
Question: I noticed that the most recent docs are from July 2002. Has
nothing change since then?
~Jonathan
Weston M. Price wrote:
>I guess first and foremost,
>
>IMO
>
>Let's have fun with this module...man, we have banged around on this list all
>day and I believe we have really worked out some excellent ideas. I know I
>have gained a great deal by just being involved...but let's not forget, we
>are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache right? Verification and
>deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in J2EE, in fact, next to Java
>IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more dull....well, save for maybe
>the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore that)...However, I am pretty pumped about
>this.....I get to develop code with smart engaging personalities (some that
>get up before noon) and just have a blast....so, let's just take it step by
>step and see what comes up....I have already heard about a million ideas that
>are great....the basic module structure could use some comments...so let's
>just role with it...
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Weston
>
>
>
>
>
>On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm, denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
>
>
>>Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on that...
>>
>>About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment verifier
>>will have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from
>>somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of external entities. This
>>way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an
>>ant task for it, and so on.
>>
>>Some thoughs about the verifier:
>>
>>1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each
>>rule implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in
>>the same class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO this
>>is the best that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed from
>>specs will be promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of
>>Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about
>>what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules,
>>session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be related to more than one
>>domain. This will speed up the process, as the verifies asks only the rules
>>related to the domain that it`s verifying at moment;
>>
>>2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like
>>ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what
>>section was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for sure
>>;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use
>>the validator can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want; IMO
>>this is better than exceptions because we can generate several violations
>>at once and is better that string messages because gives more flexibility.
>>
>>3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
>>files to do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be
>>interesting but have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point
>>is that the server will have to read these file as well to startup the
>>application. So, the reader should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone
>>knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
>>
>>4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees
>>in using JAXB?
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Denes
>>
>>Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
>>
>>
>>>Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
>>>ideas for planning?
>>>
>>>~Jonathan
>>>
>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Right on dude....
>>>>
>>>>You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
>>>>controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
>>>>
>>>>
>>>services....The
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>personal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least in
>>>>terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment service.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>This
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate a
>>>>common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's own
>>>>module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
>>>>
>>>>Weston
>>>>
>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
>>>>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
>>>>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
>>>>>>alluded
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
>>>>>>coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and the
>>>>>>deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be
>>>>>>loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher
>>>>>>level of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE
>>>>>>archive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
>>>>>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
>>>>>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
>>>>>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
>>>>>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
>>>>>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
>>>>>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
>>>>>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Labeeb Syed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
>>>>>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
>>>>>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
>>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
>>>>>>>>both modules might use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>closely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>together....Chris made an
>>>>>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
>>>>>>>>>certain basic facilities that
>>>>>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>common object model for
>>>>>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
>>>>>>>>>probably develop our own
>>>>>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>deployer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
>>>>>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>deployer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a$$
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>tool to have as a
>>>>>>>>>>>developer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>to verify the
>>>>>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Count me in!
>>>>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
>>>>>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>talking
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>about are two modules
>>>>>>>>>>>that are
>>>>>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>again,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
>>>>>>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
>>>>>>>>>>>deployment manager would
>>>>>>>>>>>deal
>>>>>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LinkageConstraints,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
>>>>>>>>>>>versions
>>>>>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
>>>>>>>>>>>actual semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>fallibities in
>>>>>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>specifications.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verification
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>module was that I
>>>>>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>engine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>that given a deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ever
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>due
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>the fact that XML
>>>>>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>if
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>are "correct" at
>>>>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>in my
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>opion would be to
>>>>>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verify
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>archive during
>>>>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Duty
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>module?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I mean we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>accept.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>together.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>declare
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mission..right
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>weston??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>verification
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a completely different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>correct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>=== message truncated ===
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>>>>>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
I think it depends on what we want to do. I was
thinking we use a loader to grab our files and put
them in an object model...
Client code would then pass this object model to other
tools.
I'm thinking this might be too far along in the
development lifecycle. I think we might want to start
with use cases.
we need to figure out exactly what the tool(s) will
do.
we need to figure out dependencies at a high level.
hmmm.... it may be a good idea to set up a twiki page
for these modules.
I think it be best that everyone might want to start
diving into specifications before talking too much
about one thing.
The loads of replies are getting hard to track.
--- denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> I vote to place the verifier and Deploy Tool in
> separate modules. IMO the
> verifier is only one module that will run inside
> Deploy Tool. The verifier also
> should run outside the deploy tool (as a ant task,
> for example).
>
> I`m worried too that we are ready to mount on
> horses, but not because we are
> ready to do that, but because I think that we still
> not sure about where we are
> going...
>
> I wish we could discuss some more about how the
> Loader and the Verifier could
> interact. That part is really not clear to me. Is
> the verifier receive a ear
> file and send the xmls to the loader to obtain the
> info, or the loader will
> callback the verifier to validate the classes that
> it reads?
>
> Denes
>
>
> Citando Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > I count three important pieces for the moment...
> >
> > .. Verifier
> > .. Loader - CASTOR or JAXB - Build the
> DDBeans..etc..
> > .. Deploy Tool
> >
> > Do we want to place the Verifier and Deploy Tool
> in to
> > separate modules? Is anyone out there suppose to
> be
> > the project champion? I'm just worried that we are
> all
> > getting ready to mount or horses.
> >
> > I still think it would be good to share the DD
> Beans.
> >
> > Wish I didn't have to do real work! This is
> definitely
> > more compelling.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I guess first and foremost,
> > >
> > > IMO
> > >
> > > Let's have fun with this module...man, we have
> > > banged around on this list all
> > > day and I believe we have really worked out some
> > > excellent ideas. I know I
> > > have gained a great deal by just being
> > > involved...but let's not forget, we
> > > are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache
> > > right? Verification and
> > > deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in
> > > J2EE, in fact, next to Java
> > > IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more
> > > dull....well, save for maybe
> > > the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore
> that)...However, I
> > > am pretty pumped about
> > > this.....I get to develop code with smart
> engaging
> > > personalities (some that
> > > get up before noon) and just have a blast....so,
> > > let's just take it step by
> > > step and see what comes up....I have already
> heard
> > > about a million ideas that
> > > are great....the basic module structure could
> use
> > > some comments...so let's
> > > just role with it...
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm,
> > > denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> > > > Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet.
> > > Definitively needs help on that...
> > > >
> > > > About planning: I think that all of us agreed
> that
> > > the deployment verifier
> > > > will have to be a component: it will have to
> > > receive the ear file from
> > > > somewhere and do all the tasks without any
> help of
> > > external entities. This
> > > > way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in
> the
> > > server, we can create an
> > > > ant task for it, and so on.
> > > >
> > > > Some thoughs about the verifier:
> > > >
> > > > 1. It should have an interface for rules. This
> > > interface will allow each
> > > > rule implemented in a distinct class (several
> > > rules can be implemented in
> > > > the same class either). Not sure about
> performance
> > > issues yet, but IMO this
> > > > is the best that can be done to make sure that
> new
> > > rules added/removed from
> > > > specs will be promptly integrated into
> verifier.
> > > I'm thinking in Chain of
> > > > Responsability to manage the rules, but each
> rule
> > > will have to say about
> > > > what domain it`s related (home interfaces
> rules,
> > > local interfaces rules,
> > > > session rules and so on). One "class rule" can
> be
> > > related to more than one
> > > > domain. This will speed up the process, as the
> > > verifies asks only the rules
> > > > related to the domain that it`s verifying at
> > > moment;
> > > >
> > > > 2. It should have an interface for expressing
> > > rules violations, like
> > > > ActionError on Struts. This interface should
> allow
> > > to query about what
> > > > section was violated, the message related to
> the
> > > error (with i18n for sure
> > > > ;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way,
> any
> > > tool that want to use
> > > > the validator can get the error lists and
> > > manipulate them as they want; IMO
> > > > this is better than exceptions because we can
> > > generate several violations
> > > > at once and is better that string messages
> because
> > > gives more flexibility.
> > > >
> > > > 3. The validator will have to read the
> > > application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> > > > files to do the job (specific deployment files
> > > like jboss.xml would be
> > > > interesting but have to be integrated in a
> really
> > > modular way). The point
> > > > is that the server will have to read these
> file as
> > > well to startup the
> > > > application. So, the reader should be placed
> in a
> > > common lib. Do anyone
> > > > knows if jakarta already have this
> implemented?
> > > >
> > > > 4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed
> > > above, does everyone agrees
> > > > in using JAXB?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Denes
> > > >
> > > > Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > > > > Great. Lets get a maven project stub
> generated
> > > and get started. Any
> > > > > ideas for planning?
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > > > >Right on dude....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the
> > > relationship between the
> > > > > >controller and the two...well at this point
> we
> > > will call them
> > > > >
> > > > > services....The
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by de...@ppgia.pucpr.br.
I vote to place the verifier and Deploy Tool in separate modules. IMO the
verifier is only one module that will run inside Deploy Tool. The verifier also
should run outside the deploy tool (as a ant task, for example).
I`m worried too that we are ready to mount on horses, but not because we are
ready to do that, but because I think that we still not sure about where we are
going...
I wish we could discuss some more about how the Loader and the Verifier could
interact. That part is really not clear to me. Is the verifier receive a ear
file and send the xmls to the loader to obtain the info, or the loader will
callback the verifier to validate the classes that it reads?
Denes
Citando Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>:
> I count three important pieces for the moment...
>
> .. Verifier
> .. Loader - CASTOR or JAXB - Build the DDBeans..etc..
> .. Deploy Tool
>
> Do we want to place the Verifier and Deploy Tool in to
> separate modules? Is anyone out there suppose to be
> the project champion? I'm just worried that we are all
> getting ready to mount or horses.
>
> I still think it would be good to share the DD Beans.
>
> Wish I didn't have to do real work! This is definitely
> more compelling.
>
>
>
> --- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I guess first and foremost,
> >
> > IMO
> >
> > Let's have fun with this module...man, we have
> > banged around on this list all
> > day and I believe we have really worked out some
> > excellent ideas. I know I
> > have gained a great deal by just being
> > involved...but let's not forget, we
> > are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache
> > right? Verification and
> > deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in
> > J2EE, in fact, next to Java
> > IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more
> > dull....well, save for maybe
> > the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore that)...However, I
> > am pretty pumped about
> > this.....I get to develop code with smart engaging
> > personalities (some that
> > get up before noon) and just have a blast....so,
> > let's just take it step by
> > step and see what comes up....I have already heard
> > about a million ideas that
> > are great....the basic module structure could use
> > some comments...so let's
> > just role with it...
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm,
> > denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> > > Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet.
> > Definitively needs help on that...
> > >
> > > About planning: I think that all of us agreed that
> > the deployment verifier
> > > will have to be a component: it will have to
> > receive the ear file from
> > > somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of
> > external entities. This
> > > way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the
> > server, we can create an
> > > ant task for it, and so on.
> > >
> > > Some thoughs about the verifier:
> > >
> > > 1. It should have an interface for rules. This
> > interface will allow each
> > > rule implemented in a distinct class (several
> > rules can be implemented in
> > > the same class either). Not sure about performance
> > issues yet, but IMO this
> > > is the best that can be done to make sure that new
> > rules added/removed from
> > > specs will be promptly integrated into verifier.
> > I'm thinking in Chain of
> > > Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule
> > will have to say about
> > > what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules,
> > local interfaces rules,
> > > session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be
> > related to more than one
> > > domain. This will speed up the process, as the
> > verifies asks only the rules
> > > related to the domain that it`s verifying at
> > moment;
> > >
> > > 2. It should have an interface for expressing
> > rules violations, like
> > > ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow
> > to query about what
> > > section was violated, the message related to the
> > error (with i18n for sure
> > > ;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any
> > tool that want to use
> > > the validator can get the error lists and
> > manipulate them as they want; IMO
> > > this is better than exceptions because we can
> > generate several violations
> > > at once and is better that string messages because
> > gives more flexibility.
> > >
> > > 3. The validator will have to read the
> > application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> > > files to do the job (specific deployment files
> > like jboss.xml would be
> > > interesting but have to be integrated in a really
> > modular way). The point
> > > is that the server will have to read these file as
> > well to startup the
> > > application. So, the reader should be placed in a
> > common lib. Do anyone
> > > knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
> > >
> > > 4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed
> > above, does everyone agrees
> > > in using JAXB?
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Denes
> > >
> > > Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > > > Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated
> > and get started. Any
> > > > ideas for planning?
> > > >
> > > > ~Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > > >Right on dude....
> > > > >
> > > > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the
> > relationship between the
> > > > >controller and the two...well at this point we
> > will call them
> > > >
> > > > services....The
> > > >
> > > > >"manager" cooridinates the interaction between
> > the two...I am of the
> > > >
> > > > personal
> > > >
> > > > >mind that the verification service should have
> > no knowledge (at least in
> > > > >terms of hard references, we will share code)
> > of the deployment service.
> > > >
> > > > This
> > > >
> > > > >would allow the modules to be distinct....this
> > would naturally dictate a
> > > > >common set of classes shared between us which
> > could possibly be it's own
> > > > >module, perhaps the objects implementing the
> > javax interfaces.
> > > > >
> > > > >Weston
> > > > >
> > > > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan
> > Duty wrote:
> > > > >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures,
> > I tried to draw what you
> > > > >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea
> > of your vision?
> > > > >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others
> > out also.
> > > > >>~Jonathan
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > > >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment
> > manager (as Chris
> > > > >>> alluded
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > > >>>earlier this morning). The manager would be
> > responsible for
> > > > >>> coordinating the interaction between the
> > verification engine and the
> > > > >>> deployment engine....sort of a controller,
> > that way the two can be
> > > > >>> loosely coupled relying on an external agent
> > to provide an higher
> > > > >>> level of service, in this case the complete
> > deployment of a J2EE
> > > > >>> archive.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Weston
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb
> > Syed wrote:
> > > > >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to
> > interface
> > > > >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like
> > to
> > > > >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for
> > ensuring
> > > > >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr
> > mapping vs
> > > > >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any
> > such other
> > > > >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd
> > like to come
> > > > >>>>up with a list potential technical problems
> > we could
> > > > >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD
> > file.
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
--
Existem 10 tipos de pessoas: as que entendem binário e as que não.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
I count three important pieces for the moment...
.. Verifier
.. Loader - CASTOR or JAXB - Build the DDBeans..etc..
.. Deploy Tool
Do we want to place the Verifier and Deploy Tool in to
separate modules? Is anyone out there suppose to be
the project champion? I'm just worried that we are all
getting ready to mount or horses.
I still think it would be good to share the DD Beans.
Wish I didn't have to do real work! This is definitely
more compelling.
--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I guess first and foremost,
>
> IMO
>
> Let's have fun with this module...man, we have
> banged around on this list all
> day and I believe we have really worked out some
> excellent ideas. I know I
> have gained a great deal by just being
> involved...but let's not forget, we
> are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache
> right? Verification and
> deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in
> J2EE, in fact, next to Java
> IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more
> dull....well, save for maybe
> the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore that)...However, I
> am pretty pumped about
> this.....I get to develop code with smart engaging
> personalities (some that
> get up before noon) and just have a blast....so,
> let's just take it step by
> step and see what comes up....I have already heard
> about a million ideas that
> are great....the basic module structure could use
> some comments...so let's
> just role with it...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm,
> denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> > Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet.
> Definitively needs help on that...
> >
> > About planning: I think that all of us agreed that
> the deployment verifier
> > will have to be a component: it will have to
> receive the ear file from
> > somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of
> external entities. This
> > way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the
> server, we can create an
> > ant task for it, and so on.
> >
> > Some thoughs about the verifier:
> >
> > 1. It should have an interface for rules. This
> interface will allow each
> > rule implemented in a distinct class (several
> rules can be implemented in
> > the same class either). Not sure about performance
> issues yet, but IMO this
> > is the best that can be done to make sure that new
> rules added/removed from
> > specs will be promptly integrated into verifier.
> I'm thinking in Chain of
> > Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule
> will have to say about
> > what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules,
> local interfaces rules,
> > session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be
> related to more than one
> > domain. This will speed up the process, as the
> verifies asks only the rules
> > related to the domain that it`s verifying at
> moment;
> >
> > 2. It should have an interface for expressing
> rules violations, like
> > ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow
> to query about what
> > section was violated, the message related to the
> error (with i18n for sure
> > ;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any
> tool that want to use
> > the validator can get the error lists and
> manipulate them as they want; IMO
> > this is better than exceptions because we can
> generate several violations
> > at once and is better that string messages because
> gives more flexibility.
> >
> > 3. The validator will have to read the
> application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> > files to do the job (specific deployment files
> like jboss.xml would be
> > interesting but have to be integrated in a really
> modular way). The point
> > is that the server will have to read these file as
> well to startup the
> > application. So, the reader should be placed in a
> common lib. Do anyone
> > knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
> >
> > 4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed
> above, does everyone agrees
> > in using JAXB?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denes
> >
> > Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > > Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated
> and get started. Any
> > > ideas for planning?
> > >
> > > ~Jonathan
> > >
> > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > >Right on dude....
> > > >
> > > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the
> relationship between the
> > > >controller and the two...well at this point we
> will call them
> > >
> > > services....The
> > >
> > > >"manager" cooridinates the interaction between
> the two...I am of the
> > >
> > > personal
> > >
> > > >mind that the verification service should have
> no knowledge (at least in
> > > >terms of hard references, we will share code)
> of the deployment service.
> > >
> > > This
> > >
> > > >would allow the modules to be distinct....this
> would naturally dictate a
> > > >common set of classes shared between us which
> could possibly be it's own
> > > >module, perhaps the objects implementing the
> javax interfaces.
> > > >
> > > >Weston
> > > >
> > > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan
> Duty wrote:
> > > >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures,
> I tried to draw what you
> > > >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea
> of your vision?
> > > >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others
> out also.
> > > >>~Jonathan
> > > >>
> > > >>Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment
> manager (as Chris
> > > >>> alluded
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > >>>earlier this morning). The manager would be
> responsible for
> > > >>> coordinating the interaction between the
> verification engine and the
> > > >>> deployment engine....sort of a controller,
> that way the two can be
> > > >>> loosely coupled relying on an external agent
> to provide an higher
> > > >>> level of service, in this case the complete
> deployment of a J2EE
> > > >>> archive.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Weston
> > > >>>
> > > >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb
> Syed wrote:
> > > >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to
> interface
> > > >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like
> to
> > > >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for
> ensuring
> > > >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr
> mapping vs
> > > >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any
> such other
> > > >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd
> like to come
> > > >>>>up with a list potential technical problems
> we could
> > > >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD
> file.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
I guess first and foremost,
IMO
Let's have fun with this module...man, we have banged around on this list all
day and I believe we have really worked out some excellent ideas. I know I
have gained a great deal by just being involved...but let's not forget, we
are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache right? Verification and
deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in J2EE, in fact, next to Java
IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more dull....well, save for maybe
the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore that)...However, I am pretty pumped about
this.....I get to develop code with smart engaging personalities (some that
get up before noon) and just have a blast....so, let's just take it step by
step and see what comes up....I have already heard about a million ideas that
are great....the basic module structure could use some comments...so let's
just role with it...
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm, denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on that...
>
> About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment verifier
> will have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from
> somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of external entities. This
> way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an
> ant task for it, and so on.
>
> Some thoughs about the verifier:
>
> 1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each
> rule implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in
> the same class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO this
> is the best that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed from
> specs will be promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of
> Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about
> what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules,
> session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be related to more than one
> domain. This will speed up the process, as the verifies asks only the rules
> related to the domain that it`s verifying at moment;
>
> 2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like
> ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what
> section was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for sure
> ;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use
> the validator can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want; IMO
> this is better than exceptions because we can generate several violations
> at once and is better that string messages because gives more flexibility.
>
> 3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> files to do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be
> interesting but have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point
> is that the server will have to read these file as well to startup the
> application. So, the reader should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone
> knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
>
> 4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees
> in using JAXB?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Denes
>
> Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
> > ideas for planning?
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > >Right on dude....
> > >
> > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
> > >controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
> >
> > services....The
> >
> > >"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the
> >
> > personal
> >
> > >mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least in
> > >terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment service.
> >
> > This
> >
> > >would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate a
> > >common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's own
> > >module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
> > >
> > >Weston
> > >
> > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> > >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
> > >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> > >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
> > >>~Jonathan
> > >>
> > >>Weston M. Price wrote:
> > >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
> > >>> alluded
> >
> > to
> >
> > >>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
> > >>> coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and the
> > >>> deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be
> > >>> loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher
> > >>> level of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE
> > >>> archive.
> > >>>
> > >>>Weston
> > >>>
> > >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> > >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> > >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> > >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> > >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> > >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> > >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> > >>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> > >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Labeeb Syed
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> > >>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> > >>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> > >>>>>also
> > >>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> > >>>>>both modules might use.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>closely
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>together....Chris made an
> > >>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> > >>>>>>certain basic facilities that
> > >>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>a
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>common object model for
> > >>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> > >>>>>>probably develop our own
> > >>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>deployer
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> > >>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>are
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>to
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>deployer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>can
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>a$$
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>tool to have as a
> > >>>>>>>>developer.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>want
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>to verify the
> > >>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Count me in!
> > >>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> > >>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>talking
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>about are two modules
> > >>>>>>>>that are
> > >>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>again,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
> > >>>>>>>>defense
> > >>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > >>>>>>>>deployment manager would
> > >>>>>>>>deal
> > >>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>LinkageConstraints,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
> > >>>>>>>>versions
> > >>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > >>>>>>>>actual semantic
> > >>>>>>>>fallibities in
> > >>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>existing
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>specifications.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>verification
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>module was that I
> > >>>>>>>>would
> > >>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>engine
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>that given a deployment
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>ever
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
> > >>>>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>due
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>to
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>the fact that XML
> > >>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>if
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>they
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>are "correct" at
> > >>>>>>>>compile
> > >>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>in my
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>opion would be to
> > >>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>verify
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>archive during
> > >>>>>>>>compile
> > >>>>>>>>time.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Duty
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>this
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>module?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I mean we don't
> > >>>>>>>>want
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>will
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>not
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>accept.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>together.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> > >>>>>>>>>;)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>True
> > >>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>declare
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> > >>>>>>>>>>deployment
> > >>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> > >>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>mission..right
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>weston??
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>verification
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>is
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>a completely different
> > >>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>correct
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>on
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>this
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> > >>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>
> > >>>>=== message truncated ===
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>__________________________________
> > >>>>Do you Yahoo!?
> > >>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > >>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by de...@ppgia.pucpr.br.
Are you saying to use CASTOR to read the xmls files?
Not familiar with CASTOR, but you think that is better than JAXB (it`s only a
question, I *really* don`t stand uf for JAXB...)?
Denes
Citando "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>:
> Castor.
>
>
>
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm, denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> > Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on
> that...
> >
> > About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment
> verifier
> > will have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from
> > somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of external entities.
> This
> > way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an
> > ant task for it, and so on.
> >
> > Some thoughs about the verifier:
> >
> > 1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each
> > rule implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in
> > the same class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO
> this
> > is the best that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed
> from
> > specs will be promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of
> > Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about
> > what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules,
> > session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be related to more than
> one
> > domain. This will speed up the process, as the verifies asks only the
> rules
> > related to the domain that it`s verifying at moment;
> >
> > 2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like
> > ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what
> > section was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for
> sure
> > ;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use
> > the validator can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want;
> IMO
> > this is better than exceptions because we can generate several violations
> > at once and is better that string messages because gives more
> flexibility.
> >
> > 3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> > files to do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be
> > interesting but have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point
> > is that the server will have to read these file as well to startup the
> > application. So, the reader should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone
> > knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
> >
> > 4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees
> > in using JAXB?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denes
> >
> > Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > > Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
> > > ideas for planning?
> > >
> > > ~Jonathan
> > >
> > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > >Right on dude....
> > > >
> > > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
> > > >controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
> > >
> > > services....The
> > >
> > > >"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the
> > >
> > > personal
> > >
> > > >mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least
> in
> > > >terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment
> service.
> > >
> > > This
> > >
> > > >would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate
> a
> > > >common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's
> own
> > > >module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
> > > >
> > > >Weston
> > > >
> > > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> > > >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what
> you
> > > >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> > > >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
> > > >>~Jonathan
> > > >>
> > > >>Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
> > > >>> alluded
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > >>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
> > > >>> coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and
> the
> > > >>> deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be
> > > >>> loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher
> > > >>> level of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE
> > > >>> archive.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Weston
> > > >>>
> > > >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> > > >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> > > >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> > > >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> > > >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> > > >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> > > >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> > > >>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> > > >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Labeeb Syed
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> > > >>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> > > >>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> > > >>>>>also
> > > >>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> > > >>>>>both modules might use.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>closely
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>together....Chris made an
> > > >>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> > > >>>>>>certain basic facilities that
> > > >>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>a
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>common object model for
> > > >>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> > > >>>>>>probably develop our own
> > > >>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Weston
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>deployer
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> > > >>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>are
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>to
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>deployer.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>can
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>a$$
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>tool to have as a
> > > >>>>>>>>developer.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>want
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>to verify the
> > > >>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Count me in!
> > > >>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> > > >>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > > >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>talking
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>about are two modules
> > > >>>>>>>>that are
> > > >>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>again,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
> > > >>>>>>>>defense
> > > >>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > > >>>>>>>>deployment manager would
> > > >>>>>>>>deal
> > > >>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>LinkageConstraints,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
> > > >>>>>>>>versions
> > > >>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > > >>>>>>>>actual semantic
> > > >>>>>>>>fallibities in
> > > >>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>existing
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>specifications.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>verification
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>module was that I
> > > >>>>>>>>would
> > > >>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>engine
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>that given a deployment
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>ever
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
> > > >>>>>>>>the
> > > >>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>due
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>to
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>the fact that XML
> > > >>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>if
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>they
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>are "correct" at
> > > >>>>>>>>compile
> > > >>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>in my
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>opion would be to
> > > >>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>verify
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>archive during
> > > >>>>>>>>compile
> > > >>>>>>>>time.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Weston
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Duty
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>this
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>module?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>I mean we don't
> > > >>>>>>>>want
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>will
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>not
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>accept.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>together.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > > >>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> > > >>>>>>>>>;)
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>True
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>declare
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>deployment
> > > >>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>mission..right
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>weston??
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > >>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>verification
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>is
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>a completely different
> > > >>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>correct
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>on
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>this
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Weston
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>=== message truncated ===
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>__________________________________
> > > >>>>Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > > >>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
--
Existem 10 tipos de pessoas: as que entendem binário e as que não.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
Castor.
On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm, denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on that...
>
> About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment verifier
> will have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from
> somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of external entities. This
> way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an
> ant task for it, and so on.
>
> Some thoughs about the verifier:
>
> 1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each
> rule implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in
> the same class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO this
> is the best that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed from
> specs will be promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of
> Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about
> what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules,
> session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be related to more than one
> domain. This will speed up the process, as the verifies asks only the rules
> related to the domain that it`s verifying at moment;
>
> 2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like
> ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what
> section was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for sure
> ;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use
> the validator can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want; IMO
> this is better than exceptions because we can generate several violations
> at once and is better that string messages because gives more flexibility.
>
> 3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> files to do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be
> interesting but have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point
> is that the server will have to read these file as well to startup the
> application. So, the reader should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone
> knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
>
> 4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees
> in using JAXB?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Denes
>
> Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> > Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
> > ideas for planning?
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > >Right on dude....
> > >
> > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
> > >controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
> >
> > services....The
> >
> > >"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the
> >
> > personal
> >
> > >mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least in
> > >terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment service.
> >
> > This
> >
> > >would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate a
> > >common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's own
> > >module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
> > >
> > >Weston
> > >
> > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> > >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
> > >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> > >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
> > >>~Jonathan
> > >>
> > >>Weston M. Price wrote:
> > >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
> > >>> alluded
> >
> > to
> >
> > >>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
> > >>> coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and the
> > >>> deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be
> > >>> loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher
> > >>> level of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE
> > >>> archive.
> > >>>
> > >>>Weston
> > >>>
> > >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> > >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> > >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> > >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> > >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> > >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> > >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> > >>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> > >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Labeeb Syed
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> > >>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> > >>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> > >>>>>also
> > >>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> > >>>>>both modules might use.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>closely
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>together....Chris made an
> > >>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> > >>>>>>certain basic facilities that
> > >>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>a
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>common object model for
> > >>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> > >>>>>>probably develop our own
> > >>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>deployer
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> > >>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>are
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>to
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>deployer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>can
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>a$$
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>tool to have as a
> > >>>>>>>>developer.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>want
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>to verify the
> > >>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Count me in!
> > >>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> > >>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>talking
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>about are two modules
> > >>>>>>>>that are
> > >>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>again,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
> > >>>>>>>>defense
> > >>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > >>>>>>>>deployment manager would
> > >>>>>>>>deal
> > >>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>LinkageConstraints,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
> > >>>>>>>>versions
> > >>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > >>>>>>>>actual semantic
> > >>>>>>>>fallibities in
> > >>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>existing
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>specifications.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>verification
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>module was that I
> > >>>>>>>>would
> > >>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>engine
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>that given a deployment
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>ever
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
> > >>>>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>due
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>to
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>the fact that XML
> > >>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>if
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>they
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>are "correct" at
> > >>>>>>>>compile
> > >>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>in my
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>opion would be to
> > >>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>verify
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>archive during
> > >>>>>>>>compile
> > >>>>>>>>time.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Duty
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>this
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>module?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>I mean we don't
> > >>>>>>>>want
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>will
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>not
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>accept.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>together.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> > >>>>>>>>>;)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>True
> > >>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>declare
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> > >>>>>>>>>>deployment
> > >>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> > >>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>mission..right
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>weston??
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>verification
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>is
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>a completely different
> > >>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>correct
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>on
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>this
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> > >>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Weston
> > >>>>
> > >>>>=== message truncated ===
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>__________________________________
> > >>>>Do you Yahoo!?
> > >>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > >>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by de...@ppgia.pucpr.br.
Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on that...
About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment verifier will
have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from somewhere and
do all the tasks without any help of external entities. This way, it can be
placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an ant task for it, and
so on.
Some thoughs about the verifier:
1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each rule
implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in the same
class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO this is the best
that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed from specs will be
promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of Responsability to
manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about what domain it`s related
(home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules, session rules and so on).
One "class rule" can be related to more than one domain. This will speed up the
process, as the verifies asks only the rules related to the domain that it`s
verifying at moment;
2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like
ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what section
was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for sure ;) ), the
offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use the validator
can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want; IMO this is better
than exceptions because we can generate several violations at once and is
better that string messages because gives more flexibility.
3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml files to
do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be interesting but
have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point is that the server
will have to read these file as well to startup the application. So, the reader
should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone knows if jakarta already have this
implemented?
4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees in
using JAXB?
Cheers,
Denes
Citando Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>:
> Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
> ideas for planning?
>
> ~Jonathan
>
> Weston M. Price wrote:
>
> >Right on dude....
> >
> >You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
> >controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
> services....The
> >"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the
> personal
> >mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least in
> >terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment service.
> This
> >would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate a
> >common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's own
> >module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
> >
> >Weston
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
> >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
> >>~Jonathan
> >>
> >>Weston M. Price wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded
> to
> >>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for coordinating
> >>>the interaction between the verification engine and the deployment
> >>>engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled
> >>>relying on an external agent to provide an higher level of service, in
> >>>this case the complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
> >>>
> >>>Weston
> >>>
> >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> >>>>
> >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> >>>>
> >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> >>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> >>>>
> >>>>Labeeb Syed
> >>>>
> >>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> >>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> >>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> >>>>>also
> >>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> >>>>>both modules might use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>closely
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>together....Chris made an
> >>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> >>>>>>certain basic facilities that
> >>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>common object model for
> >>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> >>>>>>probably develop our own
> >>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>deployer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> >>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>are
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>deployer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>can
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>a$$
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>tool to have as a
> >>>>>>>>developer.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>want
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>to verify the
> >>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Count me in!
> >>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> >>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>talking
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>about are two modules
> >>>>>>>>that are
> >>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>again,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
> >>>>>>>>defense
> >>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> >>>>>>>>deployment manager would
> >>>>>>>>deal
> >>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>LinkageConstraints,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
> >>>>>>>>versions
> >>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> >>>>>>>>actual semantic
> >>>>>>>>fallibities in
> >>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>existing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>specifications.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>verification
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>module was that I
> >>>>>>>>would
> >>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>engine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>that given a deployment
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>ever
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
> >>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>due
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>the fact that XML
> >>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>if
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>they
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>are "correct" at
> >>>>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>in my
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>opion would be to
> >>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>verify
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>archive during
> >>>>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>>>time.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>Duty
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>this
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>module?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I mean we don't
> >>>>>>>>want
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>will
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>not
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>accept.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>together.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> >>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> >>>>>>>>>;)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>True
> >>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>declare
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> >>>>>>>>>>deployment
> >>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> >>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>mission..right
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>weston??
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>verification
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>is
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>a completely different
> >>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>correct
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>on
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> >>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>=== message truncated ===
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>__________________________________
> >>>>Do you Yahoo!?
> >>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> >>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
--
Existem 10 tipos de pessoas: as que entendem binário e as que não.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any
ideas for planning?
~Jonathan
Weston M. Price wrote:
>Right on dude....
>
>You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
>controller and the two...well at this point we will call them services....The
>"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the personal
>mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least in
>terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment service. This
>would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate a
>common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's own
>module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
>
>Weston
>
>
>
>
>
>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
>
>
>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
>>~Jonathan
>>
>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded to
>>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for coordinating
>>>the interaction between the verification engine and the deployment
>>>engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled
>>>relying on an external agent to provide an higher level of service, in
>>>this case the complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
>>>
>>>Weston
>>>
>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
>>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
>>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
>>>>
>>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
>>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
>>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
>>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>>>>
>>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
>>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
>>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
>>>>
>>>>Labeeb Syed
>>>>
>>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
>>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
>>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
>>>>>also
>>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
>>>>>both modules might use.
>>>>>
>>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>closely
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>together....Chris made an
>>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
>>>>>>certain basic facilities that
>>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>common object model for
>>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
>>>>>>probably develop our own
>>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
>>>>>>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>deployer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
>>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>deployer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>a$$
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>tool to have as a
>>>>>>>>developer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>want
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>to verify the
>>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Count me in!
>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
>>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>talking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>about are two modules
>>>>>>>>that are
>>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>again,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
>>>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
>>>>>>>>deployment manager would
>>>>>>>>deal
>>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>LinkageConstraints,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
>>>>>>>>versions
>>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
>>>>>>>>actual semantic
>>>>>>>>fallibities in
>>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>existing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>specifications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>verification
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>module was that I
>>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>engine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>that given a deployment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>ever
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>due
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the fact that XML
>>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>if
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>are "correct" at
>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>in my
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>opion would be to
>>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>verify
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>archive during
>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>Duty
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>module?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I mean we don't
>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>will
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>accept.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
>>>>>>>>>;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>True
>>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>declare
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
>>>>>>>>>>deployment
>>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
>>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>mission..right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>weston??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>verification
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>a completely different
>>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>correct
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>=== message truncated ===
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>__________________________________
>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
Right on dude....
You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
controller and the two...well at this point we will call them services....The
"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the personal
mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least in
terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment service. This
would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate a
common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's own
module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
> were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
> ~Jonathan
>
> Weston M. Price wrote:
> >I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded to
> >earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for coordinating
> > the interaction between the verification engine and the deployment
> > engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled
> > relying on an external agent to provide an higher level of service, in
> > this case the complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
> >
> >Weston
> >
> >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> >>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> >>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> >>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> >>
> >>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> >>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> >>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> >>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> >>
> >>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> >>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> >>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> >>
> >>Labeeb Syed
> >>
> >>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> >>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> >>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> >>>also
> >>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> >>>both modules might use.
> >>>
> >>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> >>>
> >>>closely
> >>>
> >>>>together....Chris made an
> >>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> >>>>certain basic facilities that
> >>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> >>>
> >>>a
> >>>
> >>>>common object model for
> >>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> >>>>probably develop our own
> >>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> >>>>
> >>>>Weston
> >>>>
> >>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> >>>>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> >>>>
> >>>>deployer
> >>>>
> >>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> >>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> >>>>
> >>>>are
> >>>>
> >>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> >>>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> >>>>
> >>>>deployer.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> >>>
> >>>can
> >>>
> >>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> >>>
> >>>a$$
> >>>
> >>>>>>tool to have as a
> >>>>>>developer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> >>>>
> >>>>want
> >>>>
> >>>>>>to verify the
> >>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Count me in!
> >>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> >>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>
> >>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> >>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> >>>
> >>>talking
> >>>
> >>>>>>about are two modules
> >>>>>>that are
> >>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> >>>>
> >>>>again,
> >>>>
> >>>>>>the "front-line" of
> >>>>>>defense
> >>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> >>>>>>deployment manager would
> >>>>>>deal
> >>>>>>with critical errors such as
> >>>
> >>>LinkageConstraints,
> >>>
> >>>>>>incorrect classfile
> >>>>>>versions
> >>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> >>>>>>actual semantic
> >>>>>>fallibities in
> >>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> >>>>
> >>>>existing
> >>>>
> >>>>>>specifications.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
> >>>
> >>>verification
> >>>
> >>>>>>module was that I
> >>>>>>would
> >>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> >>>
> >>>engine
> >>>
> >>>>>>that given a deployment
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> >>>>
> >>>>ever
> >>>>
> >>>>>>trying to drop it in
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> >>>
> >>>due
> >>>
> >>>>to
> >>>>
> >>>>>>the fact that XML
> >>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> >>>
> >>>if
> >>>
> >>>>they
> >>>>
> >>>>>>are "correct" at
> >>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> >>>>
> >>>>in my
> >>>>
> >>>>>>opion would be to
> >>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> >>>
> >>>verify
> >>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>>>archive during
> >>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> >>>
> >>>Duty
> >>>
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> >>>
> >>>this
> >>>
> >>>>>>verifier, even as a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> >>>>
> >>>>module?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I mean we don't
> >>>>>>want
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> >>>
> >>>will
> >>>
> >>>>not
> >>>>
> >>>>>>accept.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> >>>>
> >>>>together.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> >>>>
> >>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> >>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> >>>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> >>>>>>>;)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>True
> >>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> >>>>
> >>>>declare
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> >>>>>>>>deployment
> >>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> >>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> >>>>
> >>>>mission..right
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>weston??
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> >>>>
> >>>>verification
> >>>>
> >>>>>>is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a completely different
> >>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> >>>
> >>>correct
> >>>
> >>>>on
> >>>>
> >>>>>>this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> >>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Weston
> >>
> >>=== message truncated ===
> >>
> >>
> >>__________________________________
> >>Do you Yahoo!?
> >>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> >>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: RES: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
Denes,
Yes, the arrow means uses. As for the term "deployment manager", I got
that from Weston's earlier e-mail
Excerpt from Weston Price:
"I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded to
earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for coordinating the
interaction between the verification engine and the deployment engine....sort
of a controller,that way the two can be loosely coupled relying on an
external agent to provide an higher level of service"
Basically the DeploymentManager would first Send the archive into the Verification Engine to make sure it was assembled correctly. If that passed then the Deployment Manager would send the archive into the deployment engine to actually be deployed into Gerinomo.
A point to note is that the Verification engine can also be used in other places, like Weston said. We could make it an Ant task, or attach it to this gerinomo gui so developers could verify their archive before sending it to Gerinomo for deployment.
~Jonathan
Denes wrote:
>If the arrows means "uses" I think that's right.
>
>Not sure about what DeploymentManager really is. Is it the deploy tool,
>some daemon on server, or both?
>
>Denes
>
>
>
>
>>-----Mensagem original-----
>>De: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
>>Enviada em: segunda-feira, 11 de agosto de 2003 13:49
>>Para: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>Assunto: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>
>>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
>>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
>>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
>>~Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>Weston M. Price wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
>>>
>>>
>alluded
>
>
>>to
>>
>>
>>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
>>>
>>>
>coordinating
>
>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>interaction between the verification engine and the deployment
>>>
>>>
>>engine....sort
>>
>>
>>>of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled relying on
>>>
>>>
>an
>
>
>>>external agent to provide an higher level of service, in this case
>>>
>>>
>the
>
>
>>>complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
>>>
>>>Weston
>>>
>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
>>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
>>>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
>>>>
>>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
>>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
>>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
>>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>>>>
>>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
>>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
>>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
>>>>
>>>>Labeeb Syed
>>>>
>>>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
>>>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
>>>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
>>>>>also
>>>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
>>>>>both modules might use.
>>>>>
>>>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>closely
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>together....Chris made an
>>>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
>>>>>>certain basic facilities that
>>>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>common object model for
>>>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
>>>>>>probably develop our own
>>>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
>>>>>>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>deployer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
>>>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>deployer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>a$$
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>tool to have as a
>>>>>>>>developer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>want
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>to verify the
>>>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Count me in!
>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
>>>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>talking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>about are two modules
>>>>>>>>that are
>>>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>again,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the "front-line" of
>>>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
>>>>>>>>deployment manager would
>>>>>>>>deal
>>>>>>>>with critical errors such as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>LinkageConstraints,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>incorrect classfile
>>>>>>>>versions
>>>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
>>>>>>>>actual semantic
>>>>>>>>fallibities in
>>>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>existing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>specifications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>verification
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>module was that I
>>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>engine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>that given a deployment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>ever
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>trying to drop it in
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>due
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the fact that XML
>>>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>if
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>are "correct" at
>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>in my
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>opion would be to
>>>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>verify
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>archive during
>>>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>Duty
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>verifier, even as a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>module?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I mean we don't
>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>will
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>accept.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
>>>>>>>>>;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>True
>>>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>declare
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
>>>>>>>>>>deployment
>>>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
>>>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>mission..right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>weston??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
>>>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>verification
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>a completely different
>>>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>correct
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>=== message truncated ===
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>__________________________________
>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
RES: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Denes <de...@ppgia.pucpr.br>.
If the arrows means "uses" I think that's right.
Not sure about what DeploymentManager really is. Is it the deploy tool,
some daemon on server, or both?
Denes
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
> Enviada em: segunda-feira, 11 de agosto de 2003 13:49
> Para: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Assunto: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
> were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
> ~Jonathan
>
>
>
> Weston M. Price wrote:
>
> >I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
alluded
> to
> >earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
coordinating
> the
> >interaction between the verification engine and the deployment
> engine....sort
> >of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled relying on
an
> >external agent to provide an higher level of service, in this case
the
> >complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
> >
> >Weston
> >
> >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> >>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> >>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> >>
> >>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> >>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> >>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> >>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> >>
> >>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> >>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> >>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> >>
> >>Labeeb Syed
> >>
> >>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> >>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> >>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> >>>also
> >>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> >>>both modules might use.
> >>>
> >>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>closely
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>together....Chris made an
> >>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> >>>>certain basic facilities that
> >>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>common object model for
> >>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> >>>>probably develop our own
> >>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> >>>>
> >>>>Weston
> >>>>
> >>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> >>>>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>deployer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> >>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>are
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>deployer.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>can
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>a$$
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>tool to have as a
> >>>>>>developer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>want
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>to verify the
> >>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Count me in!
> >>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> >>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> >>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>talking
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>about are two modules
> >>>>>>that are
> >>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>again,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>the "front-line" of
> >>>>>>defense
> >>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> >>>>>>deployment manager would
> >>>>>>deal
> >>>>>>with critical errors such as
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>LinkageConstraints,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>incorrect classfile
> >>>>>>versions
> >>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> >>>>>>actual semantic
> >>>>>>fallibities in
> >>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>existing
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>specifications.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>verification
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>module was that I
> >>>>>>would
> >>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>engine
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>that given a deployment
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>ever
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>trying to drop it in
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>due
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>the fact that XML
> >>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>if
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>they
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>are "correct" at
> >>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>in my
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>opion would be to
> >>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>verify
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>archive during
> >>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>Duty
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>this
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>verifier, even as a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>module?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I mean we don't
> >>>>>>want
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>will
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>accept.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>together.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> >>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> >>>>>>>;)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>True
> >>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>declare
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> >>>>>>>>deployment
> >>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> >>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>mission..right
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>weston??
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>verification
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a completely different
> >>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>correct
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>on
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> >>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>=== message truncated ===
> >>
> >>
> >>__________________________________
> >>Do you Yahoo!?
> >>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> >>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> >>
> >>
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also.
~Jonathan
Weston M. Price wrote:
>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded to
>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for coordinating the
>interaction between the verification engine and the deployment engine....sort
>of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled relying on an
>external agent to provide an higher level of service, in this case the
>complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
>
>Weston
>
>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
>
>
>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
>>
>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>>
>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
>>
>>Labeeb Syed
>>
>>--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
>>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
>>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
>>>also
>>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
>>>both modules might use.
>>>
>>>--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
>>>>
>>>>
>>>closely
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>together....Chris made an
>>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
>>>>certain basic facilities that
>>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
>>>>
>>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>common object model for
>>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
>>>>probably develop our own
>>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
>>>>
>>>>Weston
>>>>
>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
>>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>deployer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
>>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>are
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>deployer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>can
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
>>>>>
>>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>a$$
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>tool to have as a
>>>>>>developer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>want
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>to verify the
>>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Count me in!
>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jonathan Duty
>>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>talking
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>about are two modules
>>>>>>that are
>>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>again,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>the "front-line" of
>>>>>>defense
>>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
>>>>>>deployment manager would
>>>>>>deal
>>>>>>with critical errors such as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>LinkageConstraints,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>incorrect classfile
>>>>>>versions
>>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
>>>>>>actual semantic
>>>>>>fallibities in
>>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>existing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>specifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I mentioned a seperate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>verification
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>module was that I
>>>>>>would
>>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>engine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>that given a deployment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>ever
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>trying to drop it in
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>due
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>the fact that XML
>>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>if
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>they
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>are "correct" at
>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>in my
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>opion would be to
>>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>verify
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>archive during
>>>>>>compile
>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>Duty
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>this
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>verifier, even as a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>module?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I mean we don't
>>>>>>want
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>will
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>not
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>accept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>together.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>~Jonathan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
>>>>>>>;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>True
>>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>declare
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
>>>>>>>>deployment
>>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
>>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>mission..right
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>weston??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
>>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>verification
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a completely different
>>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>correct
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>on
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
>>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Weston
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>=== message truncated ===
>>
>>
>>__________________________________
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>>
>>
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded to
earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for coordinating the
interaction between the verification engine and the deployment engine....sort
of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled relying on an
external agent to provide an higher level of service, in this case the
complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> implement the SPI for the deployer.
>
> Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>
> Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> up with a list potential technical problems we could
> encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
>
> Labeeb Syed
>
> --- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> > object model that has been defined in the deployment
> > spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> > also
> > some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> > both modules might use.
> >
> > --- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > But I do agree that the two teams must work
> >
> > closely
> >
> > > together....Chris made an
> > > excellent point in indetifying that there are
> > > certain basic facilities that
> > > we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> >
> > a
> >
> > > common object model for
> > > archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> > > probably develop our own
> > > streams, attributes, behavior.....
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> > >
> > > deployer
> > >
> > > > shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> > > > run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> > >
> > > are
> > >
> > > > build from within a controller that sends them
> >
> > to
> >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > verifier for verification and then to the
> > >
> > > deployer.
> > >
> > > > Something along that lines at a high level. we
> >
> > can
> >
> > > > reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> > > >
> > > > --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > > > > +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> >
> > a$$
> >
> > > > > tool to have as a
> > > > > developer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> > >
> > > want
> > >
> > > > > to verify the
> > > > > archive schema before they start deploying it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Count me in!
> > > > > ~Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan Duty
> > > > > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree completely. I think what we are
> >
> > talking
> >
> > > > > about are two modules
> > > > > that are
> > > > > close cousins. The verification manager is
> > >
> > > again,
> > >
> > > > > the "front-line" of
> > > > > defense
> > > > > for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > > > > deployment manager would
> > > > > deal
> > > > > with critical errors such as
> >
> > LinkageConstraints,
> >
> > > > > incorrect classfile
> > > > > versions
> > > > > etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > > > > actual semantic
> > > > > fallibities in
> > > > > the deployment descriptors based upon the
> > >
> > > existing
> > >
> > > > > specifications.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason I mentioned a seperate
> >
> > verification
> >
> > > > > module was that I
> > > > > would
> > > > > developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> >
> > engine
> >
> > > > > that given a deployment
> > > > >
> > > > > platform could validate their archive before
> > >
> > > ever
> > >
> > > > > trying to drop it in
> > > > > the
> > > > > chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> >
> > due
> >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > > the fact that XML
> > > > > descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> >
> > if
> >
> > > they
> > >
> > > > > are "correct" at
> > > > > compile
> > > > > time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> > >
> > > in my
> > >
> > > > > opion would be to
> > > > > provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> >
> > verify
> >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > > archive during
> > > > > compile
> > > > > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> >
> > Duty
> >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> >
> > this
> >
> > > > > verifier, even as a
> > > > >
> > > > > > separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> > >
> > > module?
> > >
> > > > > I mean we don't
> > > > > want
> > > > >
> > > > > > to deploy something that the J2EE server
> >
> > will
> >
> > > not
> > >
> > > > > accept.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> > >
> > > together.
> > >
> > > > > > ~Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Chris Opacki
> > >
> > > [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > > > verifier would be close friends.
> > > > > > ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > True
> > > > > > > Our module is just going to check and
> > >
> > > declare
> > >
> > > > > > > whether or not a given unit of
> > > > > > > deployment
> > > > > > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > > > > > Building this unit will be our
> > >
> > > mission..right
> > >
> > > > > > > weston??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > > >
> > > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And even further, let's clarify the
> > >
> > > verification
> > >
> > > > > is
> > > > >
> > > > > > > a completely different
> > > > > > > animal than actual deployment. Am I
> >
> > correct
> >
> > > on
> > >
> > > > > this
> > > > >
> > > > > > > one at least in terms of
> > > > > > > the way we are thinking about this module?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Weston
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Labeeb Syed <an...@yahoo.com>.
In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
with the deployer. I would definitely like to
implement the SPI for the deployer.
Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
databases and relational mappings, or any such other
technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
up with a list potential technical problems we could
encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
Labeeb Syed
--- Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> object model that has been defined in the deployment
> spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> also
> some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> both modules might use.
>
> --- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But I do agree that the two teams must work
> closely
> > together....Chris made an
> > excellent point in indetifying that there are
> > certain basic facilities that
> > we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> a
> > common object model for
> > archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> > probably develop our own
> > streams, attributes, behavior.....
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> > wrote:
> > > Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> > deployer
> > > shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> > > run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> > are
> > > build from within a controller that sends them
> to
> > the
> > > verifier for verification and then to the
> > deployer.
> > > Something along that lines at a high level. we
> can
> > > reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> > >
> > > --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > > > +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad
> a$$
> > > > tool to have as a
> > > > developer.
> > > >
> > > > Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> > want
> > > > to verify the
> > > > archive schema before they start deploying it.
> > > >
> > > > Count me in!
> > > > ~Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan Duty
> > > > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > > I agree completely. I think what we are
> talking
> > > > about are two modules
> > > > that are
> > > > close cousins. The verification manager is
> > again,
> > > > the "front-line" of
> > > > defense
> > > > for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > > > deployment manager would
> > > > deal
> > > > with critical errors such as
> LinkageConstraints,
> > > > incorrect classfile
> > > > versions
> > > > etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > > > actual semantic
> > > > fallibities in
> > > > the deployment descriptors based upon the
> > existing
> > > > specifications.
> > > >
> > > > The reason I mentioned a seperate
> verification
> > > > module was that I
> > > > would
> > > > developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> engine
> > > > that given a deployment
> > > >
> > > > platform could validate their archive before
> > ever
> > > > trying to drop it in
> > > > the
> > > > chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> due
> > to
> > > > the fact that XML
> > > > descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> if
> > they
> > > > are "correct" at
> > > > compile
> > > > time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> > in my
> > > > opion would be to
> > > > provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> verify
> > the
> > > > archive during
> > > > compile
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> Duty
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> this
> > > >
> > > > verifier, even as a
> > > >
> > > > > separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> > module?
> > > >
> > > > I mean we don't
> > > > want
> > > >
> > > > > to deploy something that the J2EE server
> will
> > not
> > > >
> > > > accept.
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> > together.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chris Opacki
> > [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> > the
> > > > > verifier would be close friends.
> > > > > ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > True
> > > > > > Our module is just going to check and
> > declare
> > > > > > whether or not a given unit of
> > > > > > deployment
> > > > > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > > > > Building this unit will be our
> > mission..right
> > > > > > weston??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > >
> > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And even further, let's clarify the
> > verification
> > > >
> > > > is
> > > >
> > > > > > a completely different
> > > > > > animal than actual deployment. Am I
> correct
> > on
> > > >
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > > > > one at least in terms of
> > > > > > the way we are thinking about this module?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Weston
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
object model that has been defined in the deployment
spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are also
some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
both modules might use.
--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But I do agree that the two teams must work closely
> together....Chris made an
> excellent point in indetifying that there are
> certain basic facilities that
> we can use together....I think if we can agree on a
> common object model for
> archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> probably develop our own
> streams, attributes, behavior.....
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> wrote:
> > Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> deployer
> > shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> > run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> are
> > build from within a controller that sends them to
> the
> > verifier for verification and then to the
> deployer.
> > Something along that lines at a high level. we can
> > reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> >
> > --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > > +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$
> > > tool to have as a
> > > developer.
> > >
> > > Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> want
> > > to verify the
> > > archive schema before they start deploying it.
> > >
> > > Count me in!
> > > ~Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan Duty
> > > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > > I agree completely. I think what we are talking
> > > about are two modules
> > > that are
> > > close cousins. The verification manager is
> again,
> > > the "front-line" of
> > > defense
> > > for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > > deployment manager would
> > > deal
> > > with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints,
> > > incorrect classfile
> > > versions
> > > etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > > actual semantic
> > > fallibities in
> > > the deployment descriptors based upon the
> existing
> > > specifications.
> > >
> > > The reason I mentioned a seperate verification
> > > module was that I
> > > would
> > > developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine
> > > that given a deployment
> > >
> > > platform could validate their archive before
> ever
> > > trying to drop it in
> > > the
> > > chute. This would save a lot of time largely due
> to
> > > the fact that XML
> > > descriptors are not typed and you don't know if
> they
> > > are "correct" at
> > > compile
> > > time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> in my
> > > opion would be to
> > > provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify
> the
> > > archive during
> > > compile
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this
> > >
> > > verifier, even as a
> > >
> > > > separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> module?
> > >
> > > I mean we don't
> > > want
> > >
> > > > to deploy something that the J2EE server will
> not
> > >
> > > accept.
> > >
> > > > Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> together.
> > > >
> > > > ~Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chris Opacki
> [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> the
> > > > verifier would be close friends.
> > > > ;)
> > > >
> > > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > True
> > > > > Our module is just going to check and
> declare
> > > > > whether or not a given unit of
> > > > > deployment
> > > > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > > > Building this unit will be our
> mission..right
> > > > > weston??
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And even further, let's clarify the
> verification
> > >
> > > is
> > >
> > > > > a completely different
> > > > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct
> on
> > >
> > > this
> > >
> > > > > one at least in terms of
> > > > > the way we are thinking about this module?
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring
> to
> > >
> > > j2ee
> > >
> > > > > 1.4 spec
> > > > >
> > > > > > lets have a common understanding on
> this...u
> > >
> > > cud
> > >
> > > > > specify the correct
> > > > >
> > > > > > version
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Chris Opacki
> > >
> > > [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
But I do agree that the two teams must work closely together....Chris made an
excellent point in indetifying that there are certain basic facilities that
we can use together....I think if we can agree on a common object model for
archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could probably develop our own
streams, attributes, behavior.....
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki wrote:
> Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the deployer
> shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> run...its a good idea that the deployableobject are
> build from within a controller that sends them to the
> verifier for verification and then to the deployer.
> Something along that lines at a high level. we can
> reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
>
> --- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$
> > tool to have as a
> > developer.
> >
> > Plus, the deployment team could use it if they want
> > to verify the
> > archive schema before they start deploying it.
> >
> > Count me in!
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Duty
> > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> > I agree completely. I think what we are talking
> > about are two modules
> > that are
> > close cousins. The verification manager is again,
> > the "front-line" of
> > defense
> > for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> > deployment manager would
> > deal
> > with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints,
> > incorrect classfile
> > versions
> > etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> > actual semantic
> > fallibities in
> > the deployment descriptors based upon the existing
> > specifications.
> >
> > The reason I mentioned a seperate verification
> > module was that I
> > would
> > developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine
> > that given a deployment
> >
> > platform could validate their archive before ever
> > trying to drop it in
> > the
> > chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to
> > the fact that XML
> > descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they
> > are "correct" at
> > compile
> > time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my
> > opion would be to
> > provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the
> > archive during
> > compile
> > time.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this
> >
> > verifier, even as a
> >
> > > separate module, be a subset of the deploy module?
> >
> > I mean we don't
> > want
> >
> > > to deploy something that the J2EE server will not
> >
> > accept.
> >
> > > Maybe these 2 groups should work close together.
> > >
> > > ~Jonathan
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> > > verifier would be close friends.
> > > ;)
> > >
> > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > True
> > > > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > > > whether or not a given unit of
> > > > deployment
> > > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > > > weston??
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And even further, let's clarify the verification
> >
> > is
> >
> > > > a completely different
> > > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on
> >
> > this
> >
> > > > one at least in terms of
> > > > the way we are thinking about this module?
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to
> >
> > j2ee
> >
> > > > 1.4 spec
> > > >
> > > > > lets have a common understanding on this...u
> >
> > cud
> >
> > > > specify the correct
> > > >
> > > > > version
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chris Opacki
> >
> > [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > > >
> > > > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It
> >
> > also
> >
> > > > > provides a high level architecture describe
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > > relations between deployable components and
> > > >
> > > > objects in
> > > >
> > > > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> > > >
> > > > interesting
> > > >
> > > > > read.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end
> >
> > up
> >
> > > > using
> > > >
> > > > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> > > >
> > > > verifier as
> > > >
> > > > > > Input Process Output
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK
> >
> > with
> >
> > > error
> > >
> > > > log
> > > >
> > > > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > > > RAR rules
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on
> >
> > how
> >
> > > > it
> > > >
> > > > > > will get into the
> > > > > > geronimo frwk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the deployer
shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
run...its a good idea that the deployableobject are
build from within a controller that sends them to the
verifier for verification and then to the deployer.
Something along that lines at a high level. we can
reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$
> tool to have as a
> developer.
>
> Plus, the deployment team could use it if they want
> to verify the
> archive schema before they start deploying it.
>
> Count me in!
> ~Jonathan
>
>
> Jonathan Duty
> Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> I agree completely. I think what we are talking
> about are two modules
> that are
> close cousins. The verification manager is again,
> the "front-line" of
> defense
> for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> deployment manager would
> deal
> with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints,
> incorrect classfile
> versions
> etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> actual semantic
> fallibities in
> the deployment descriptors based upon the existing
> specifications.
>
> The reason I mentioned a seperate verification
> module was that I
> would
> developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine
> that given a deployment
>
> platform could validate their archive before ever
> trying to drop it in
> the
> chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to
> the fact that XML
> descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they
> are "correct" at
> compile
> time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my
> opion would be to
> provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the
> archive during
> compile
> time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty
> wrote:
> > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this
> verifier, even as a
> > separate module, be a subset of the deploy module?
> I mean we don't
> want
> > to deploy something that the J2EE server will not
> accept.
> >
> > Maybe these 2 groups should work close together.
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> > verifier would be close friends.
> > ;)
> >
> > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> wrote:
> > > True
> > > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > > whether or not a given unit of
> > > deployment
> > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> > >
> > > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > > weston??
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > And even further, let's clarify the verification
> is
> > > a completely different
> > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on
> this
> > > one at least in terms of
> > > the way we are thinking about this module?
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to
> j2ee
> > >
> > > 1.4 spec
> > >
> > > > lets have a common understanding on this...u
> cud
> > >
> > > specify the correct
> > >
> > > > version
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chris Opacki
> [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > >
> > > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > >
> > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It
> also
> > > > provides a high level architecture describe
> the
> > > > relations between deployable components and
> > >
> > > objects in
> > >
> > > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> > >
> > > interesting
> > >
> > > > read.
> > > >
> > > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end
> up
> > >
> > > using
> > >
> > > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> > >
> > > verifier as
> > >
> > > > > Input Process Output
> > > > >
> > > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK
> with
> >
> > error
> >
> > > log
> > >
> > > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > > RAR rules
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on
> how
> > >
> > > it
> > >
> > > > > will get into the
> > > > > geronimo frwk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
+1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$ tool to have as a
developer.
Plus, the deployment team could use it if they want to verify the
archive schema before they start deploying it.
Count me in!
~Jonathan
Jonathan Duty
Software Developer - eWashtenaw
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
I agree completely. I think what we are talking about are two modules
that are
close cousins. The verification manager is again, the "front-line" of
defense
for the deployment manager. I would assume the deployment manager would
deal
with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints, incorrect classfile
versions
etc. while the verfication manager will handle actual semantic
fallibities in
the deployment descriptors based upon the existing specifications.
The reason I mentioned a seperate verification module was that I
would
developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine that given a deployment
platform could validate their archive before ever trying to drop it in
the
chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to the fact that XML
descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they are "correct" at
compile
time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my opion would be to
provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the archive during
compile
time.
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this verifier, even as a
> separate module, be a subset of the deploy module? I mean we don't
want
> to deploy something that the J2EE server will not accept.
>
> Maybe these 2 groups should work close together.
>
> ~Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> verifier would be close friends.
> ;)
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > True
> > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > whether or not a given unit of
> > deployment
> > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >
> > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > weston??
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> > a completely different
> > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> > one at least in terms of
> > the way we are thinking about this module?
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> >
> > 1.4 spec
> >
> > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> >
> > specify the correct
> >
> > > version
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> >
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> >
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > > relations between deployable components and
> >
> > objects in
> >
> > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> >
> > interesting
> >
> > > read.
> > >
> > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> >
> > using
> >
> > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> >
> > verifier as
> >
> > > > Input Process Output
> > > >
> > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK
with
>
> error
>
> > log
> >
> > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > RAR rules
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> >
> > it
> >
> > > > will get into the
> > > > geronimo frwk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> >
> > verifier
> >
> > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> >
> > even
> >
> > > > be a standalone module
> > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > archive before ever even
> > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> >
> > your
> >
> > > > tty when you go to
> > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > drawback....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> >
> > Price
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> >
> > at
> >
> > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > >
> > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> >
> > not
> >
> > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > >
> > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > >
> > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > >
> > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> >
> > that
> >
> > > > when applied to a
> > > >
> > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> >
> > met
> >
> > > > for the archive to be
> > > >
> > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> >
> > watchdog
> >
> > > > that prevents archives
> > > >
> > > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> >
> > i
> >
> > > > started thinking abt this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier..
> > > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> >
> > rule
> >
> > > > engines for designing
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > >
> > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > > To: Srihari S;
> >
> > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> >
> > reasons:
> > > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > rules engine where
> > > > certain
> > > >
> > > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > > >
> > > > successful "deployment". The most
> > > >
> > > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > make this module
> > > >
> > > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> >
> > all
> >
> > > > know that specifications
> > > >
> > > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > > >
> > > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
I agree completely. I think what we are talking about are two modules that are
close cousins. The verification manager is again, the "front-line" of defense
for the deployment manager. I would assume the deployment manager would deal
with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints, incorrect classfile versions
etc. while the verfication manager will handle actual semantic fallibities in
the deployment descriptors based upon the existing specifications.
The reason I mentioned a seperate verification module was that I would
developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine that given a deployment
platform could validate their archive before ever trying to drop it in the
chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to the fact that XML
descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they are "correct" at compile
time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my opion would be to
provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the archive during compile
time.
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this verifier, even as a
> separate module, be a subset of the deploy module? I mean we don't want
> to deploy something that the J2EE server will not accept.
>
> Maybe these 2 groups should work close together.
>
> ~Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> verifier would be close friends.
> ;)
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > True
> > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > whether or not a given unit of
> > deployment
> > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >
> > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > weston??
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> > a completely different
> > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> > one at least in terms of
> > the way we are thinking about this module?
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> >
> > 1.4 spec
> >
> > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> >
> > specify the correct
> >
> > > version
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> >
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> >
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > > relations between deployable components and
> >
> > objects in
> >
> > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> >
> > interesting
> >
> > > read.
> > >
> > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> >
> > using
> >
> > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> >
> > verifier as
> >
> > > > Input Process Output
> > > >
> > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
>
> error
>
> > log
> >
> > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > RAR rules
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> >
> > it
> >
> > > > will get into the
> > > > geronimo frwk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> >
> > verifier
> >
> > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> >
> > even
> >
> > > > be a standalone module
> > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > archive before ever even
> > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> >
> > your
> >
> > > > tty when you go to
> > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > drawback....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> >
> > Price
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> >
> > at
> >
> > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > >
> > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> >
> > not
> >
> > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > >
> > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > >
> > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > >
> > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> >
> > that
> >
> > > > when applied to a
> > > >
> > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> >
> > met
> >
> > > > for the archive to be
> > > >
> > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> >
> > watchdog
> >
> > > > that prevents archives
> > > >
> > > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> >
> > i
> >
> > > > started thinking abt this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier..
> > > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> >
> > rule
> >
> > > > engines for designing
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > >
> > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > > To: Srihari S;
> >
> > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> >
> > reasons:
> > > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > rules engine where
> > > > certain
> > > >
> > > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > > >
> > > > successful "deployment". The most
> > > >
> > > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > make this module
> > > >
> > > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> >
> > all
> >
> > > > know that specifications
> > > >
> > > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > > >
> > > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this verifier, even as a
separate module, be a subset of the deploy module? I mean we don't want
to deploy something that the J2EE server will not accept.
Maybe these 2 groups should work close together.
~Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
verifier would be close friends.
;)
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> True
> Our module is just going to check and declare
> whether or not a given unit of
> deployment
> is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>
> Nothing more..nothing less.
> Building this unit will be our mission..right
> weston??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> a completely different
> animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> one at least in terms of
> the way we are thinking about this module?
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> 1.4 spec
> > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> specify the correct
> > version
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> weston_p@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > relations between deployable components and
> objects in
> > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> interesting
> > read.
> >
> > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> wrote:
> > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> using
> > > the rule engine concept
> > > it will because of u:)
> > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> verifier as
> > >
> > > Input Process Output
> > >
> > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
error
> log
> > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > RAR rules
> > >
> > >
> > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > standalone app and we must
> > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> it
> > > will get into the
> > > geronimo frwk
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> verifier
> > > engine/processor would be
> > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> even
> > > be a standalone module
> > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > archive before ever even
> > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> your
> > > tty when you go to
> > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > drawback....
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> Price
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> at
> > >
> > > me, poor choice of words
> > >
> > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> of
> > >
> > > "rules" as conditions
> > > that
> > >
> > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> not
> > >
> > > in terms of a full blown
> > >
> > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > >
> > > interesting). At the very core
> > >
> > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> that
> > >
> > > when applied to a
> > >
> > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> met
> > >
> > > for the archive to be
> > >
> > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> watchdog
> > >
> > > that prevents archives
> > >
> > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> i
> > >
> > > started thinking abt this
> > >
> > > > > verifier..
> > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> rule
> > >
> > > engines for designing
> > > this
> > >
> > > > > verifier?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > To: Srihari S;
> geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> reasons:
> > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> of
> > >
> > > rules engine where
> > > certain
> > >
> > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > >
> > > successful "deployment". The most
> > >
> > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> to
> > >
> > > make this module
> > >
> > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> all
> > >
> > > know that specifications
> > >
> > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > >
> > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
Well. I read the spec last night and there is quite a
bit to hold on to. The deployer is responsible for
things such as configuration, distribution and
start/stopping deployable objects. Redeploying is
optional. The tool provider is responsible for
implementing javax.enterprise.deploy.model (Some of
these implementation are introspected from our
configuration file.) This is why I was thinking that
they would have some type of association. The verifier
and deployer might want to share some objects.
--- Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> +1 I agree.
>
> Jonathan Duty
> Software Developer - eWashtenaw
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srihari S
> [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> i still feel they can be friends...the deploy tool
> will do the
> verification
> as a part of the deployment process
> then it can use the apis that we develop.
> Chris, u seem to have done some homework on the
> deployment apis..can u
> throw
> some light on what it says w.r.t the
> verification process
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:53 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
> verifier would be close friends.
> ;)
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > True
> > Our module is just going to check and declare
> > whether or not a given unit of
> > deployment
> > is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >
> > Nothing more..nothing less.
> > Building this unit will be our mission..right
> > weston??
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > And even further, let's clarify the verification
> is
> > a completely different
> > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on
> this
> > one at least in terms of
> > the way we are thinking about this module?
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to
> j2ee
> > 1.4 spec
> > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> > specify the correct
> > > version
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Opacki
> [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > > relations between deployable components and
> > objects in
> > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> > interesting
> > > read.
> > >
> > > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> > using
> > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> > verifier as
> > > >
> > > > Input Process Output
> > > >
> > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
> error
> > log
> > > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > > RAR rules
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on
> how
> > it
> > > > will get into the
> > > > geronimo frwk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> > verifier
> > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> > even
> > > > be a standalone module
> > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > archive before ever even
> > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment.
> Of
> > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll
> across
> > your
> > > > tty when you go to
> > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > drawback....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> > Price
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come
> back
> > at
> > > >
> > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > >
> > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in
> terms
> > of
> > > >
> > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a
> deployment;
> > not
> > > >
> > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > >
> > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > >
> > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > >
> > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> > that
> > > >
> > > > when applied to a
> > > >
> > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> > met
> > > >
> > > > for the archive to be
> > > >
> > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> > watchdog
> > > >
> > > > that prevents archives
> > > >
> > > > > from violating a discreet set of
> constraints.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture
> when
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
+1 I agree.
Jonathan Duty
Software Developer - eWashtenaw
-----Original Message-----
From: Srihari S [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:49 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
i still feel they can be friends...the deploy tool will do the
verification
as a part of the deployment process
then it can use the apis that we develop.
Chris, u seem to have done some homework on the deployment apis..can u
throw
some light on what it says w.r.t the
verification process
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:53 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
verifier would be close friends.
;)
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> True
> Our module is just going to check and declare
> whether or not a given unit of
> deployment
> is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>
> Nothing more..nothing less.
> Building this unit will be our mission..right
> weston??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> a completely different
> animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> one at least in terms of
> the way we are thinking about this module?
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> 1.4 spec
> > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> specify the correct
> > version
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> weston_p@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > relations between deployable components and
> objects in
> > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> interesting
> > read.
> >
> > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> wrote:
> > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> using
> > > the rule engine concept
> > > it will because of u:)
> > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> verifier as
> > >
> > > Input Process Output
> > >
> > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
error
> log
> > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > RAR rules
> > >
> > >
> > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > standalone app and we must
> > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> it
> > > will get into the
> > > geronimo frwk
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> verifier
> > > engine/processor would be
> > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> even
> > > be a standalone module
> > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > archive before ever even
> > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> your
> > > tty when you go to
> > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > drawback....
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> Price
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> at
> > >
> > > me, poor choice of words
> > >
> > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> of
> > >
> > > "rules" as conditions
> > > that
> > >
> > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> not
> > >
> > > in terms of a full blown
> > >
> > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > >
> > > interesting). At the very core
> > >
> > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> that
> > >
> > > when applied to a
> > >
> > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> met
> > >
> > > for the archive to be
> > >
> > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> watchdog
> > >
> > > that prevents archives
> > >
> > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> i
> > >
> > > started thinking abt this
> > >
> > > > > verifier..
> > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> rule
> > >
> > > engines for designing
> > > this
> > >
> > > > > verifier?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > To: Srihari S;
> geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> reasons:
> > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> of
> > >
> > > rules engine where
> > > certain
> > >
> > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > >
> > > successful "deployment". The most
> > >
> > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> to
> > >
> > > make this module
> > >
> > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> all
> > >
> > > know that specifications
> > >
> > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > >
> > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
i still feel they can be friends...the deploy tool will do the verification
as a part of the deployment process
then it can use the apis that we develop.
Chris, u seem to have done some homework on the deployment apis..can u throw
some light on what it says w.r.t the
verification process
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:53 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
verifier would be close friends.
;)
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> True
> Our module is just going to check and declare
> whether or not a given unit of
> deployment
> is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>
> Nothing more..nothing less.
> Building this unit will be our mission..right
> weston??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> a completely different
> animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> one at least in terms of
> the way we are thinking about this module?
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> 1.4 spec
> > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> specify the correct
> > version
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> weston_p@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > relations between deployable components and
> objects in
> > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> interesting
> > read.
> >
> > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> wrote:
> > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> using
> > > the rule engine concept
> > > it will because of u:)
> > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> verifier as
> > >
> > > Input Process Output
> > >
> > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error
> log
> > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > RAR rules
> > >
> > >
> > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > standalone app and we must
> > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> it
> > > will get into the
> > > geronimo frwk
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> verifier
> > > engine/processor would be
> > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> even
> > > be a standalone module
> > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > archive before ever even
> > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> your
> > > tty when you go to
> > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > drawback....
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> Price
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> at
> > >
> > > me, poor choice of words
> > >
> > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> of
> > >
> > > "rules" as conditions
> > > that
> > >
> > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> not
> > >
> > > in terms of a full blown
> > >
> > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > >
> > > interesting). At the very core
> > >
> > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> that
> > >
> > > when applied to a
> > >
> > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> met
> > >
> > > for the archive to be
> > >
> > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> watchdog
> > >
> > > that prevents archives
> > >
> > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> i
> > >
> > > started thinking abt this
> > >
> > > > > verifier..
> > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> rule
> > >
> > > engines for designing
> > > this
> > >
> > > > > verifier?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > To: Srihari S;
> geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> reasons:
> > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> of
> > >
> > > rules engine where
> > > certain
> > >
> > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > >
> > > successful "deployment". The most
> > >
> > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> to
> > >
> > > make this module
> > >
> > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> all
> > >
> > > know that specifications
> > >
> > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > >
> > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the
verifier would be close friends.
;)
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> True
> Our module is just going to check and declare
> whether or not a given unit of
> deployment
> is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
>
> Nothing more..nothing less.
> Building this unit will be our mission..right
> weston??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> And even further, let's clarify the verification is
> a completely different
> animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this
> one at least in terms of
> the way we are thinking about this module?
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> 1.4 spec
> > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> specify the correct
> > version
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> weston_p@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > relations between deployable components and
> objects in
> > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> interesting
> > read.
> >
> > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> wrote:
> > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> using
> > > the rule engine concept
> > > it will because of u:)
> > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> verifier as
> > >
> > > Input Process Output
> > >
> > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error
> log
> > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > RAR rules
> > >
> > >
> > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > standalone app and we must
> > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> it
> > > will get into the
> > > geronimo frwk
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> verifier
> > > engine/processor would be
> > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> even
> > > be a standalone module
> > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > archive before ever even
> > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> your
> > > tty when you go to
> > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > drawback....
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> Price
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> at
> > >
> > > me, poor choice of words
> > >
> > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> of
> > >
> > > "rules" as conditions
> > > that
> > >
> > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> not
> > >
> > > in terms of a full blown
> > >
> > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > >
> > > interesting). At the very core
> > >
> > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> that
> > >
> > > when applied to a
> > >
> > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> met
> > >
> > > for the archive to be
> > >
> > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> watchdog
> > >
> > > that prevents archives
> > >
> > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> i
> > >
> > > started thinking abt this
> > >
> > > > > verifier..
> > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> rule
> > >
> > > engines for designing
> > > this
> > >
> > > > > verifier?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > >
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > To: Srihari S;
> geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> reasons:
> > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> of
> > >
> > > rules engine where
> > > certain
> > >
> > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > >
> > > successful "deployment". The most
> > >
> > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> to
> > >
> > > make this module
> > >
> > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> all
> > >
> > > know that specifications
> > >
> > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > >
> > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
True
Our module is just going to check and declare whether or not a given unit of
deployment
is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
Nothing more..nothing less.
Building this unit will be our mission..right weston??
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
And even further, let's clarify the verification is a completely different
animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this one at least in terms of
the way we are thinking about this module?
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee 1.4 spec
> lets have a common understanding on this...u cud specify the correct
> version
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org; weston_p@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> provides a high level architecture describe the
> relations between deployable components and objects in
> the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an interesting
> read.
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using
> > the rule engine concept
> > it will because of u:)
> > So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
> >
> > Input Process Output
> >
> > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error log
> > WAR by parsing the DD
> > EAR and applying correctness
> > RAR rules
> >
> >
> > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > standalone app and we must
> > design its internals in this spirit
> > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it
> > will get into the
> > geronimo frwk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> > engine/processor would be
> > very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> > be a standalone module
> > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > archive before ever even
> > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > course, you wouldn't be able
> > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> > tty when you go to
> > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > drawback....
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> >
> > me, poor choice of words
> >
> > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> >
> > "rules" as conditions
> > that
> >
> > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> >
> > in terms of a full blown
> >
> > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> >
> > interesting). At the very core
> >
> > > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> >
> > when applied to a
> >
> > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> >
> > for the archive to be
> >
> > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> >
> > that prevents archives
> >
> > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> >
> > started thinking abt this
> >
> > > > verifier..
> > > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> >
> > engines for designing
> > this
> >
> > > > verifier?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> >
> > rules engine where
> > certain
> >
> > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> >
> > successful "deployment". The most
> >
> > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> >
> > make this module
> >
> > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> >
> > know that specifications
> >
> > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> >
> > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> >
> > > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> >
> > would similarly have to
> >
> > > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> >
> > This could make for some
> >
> > > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > Of course we all know that specification
> >
> > requirements never change right
> >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> >
> > staarting point to gain
> >
> > > > familiarity
> > > >
> > > > > with the specs
> > > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this would actually be quite
> >
> > interesting to work on. Man, if
> >
> > > > > there is
> > > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> >
> > specs....this is it!
> >
> > > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> >
> > would be happy to help.
> >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for
> >
> > the deployment
> > verifier,
> >
> > > > > > both to learn more about the specs and
> >
> > (hopefully) help with the
> >
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some questions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's
> >
> > deployment verifier?
> >
> > > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I
> >
> > don't have commit
> >
> > > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send
> >
> > patches/codes that I
> > create?
> >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Denes
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
And even further, let's clarify the verification is a completely different
animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this one at least in terms of
the way we are thinking about this module?
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee 1.4 spec
> lets have a common understanding on this...u cud specify the correct
> version
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org; weston_p@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> provides a high level architecture describe the
> relations between deployable components and objects in
> the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an interesting
> read.
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using
> > the rule engine concept
> > it will because of u:)
> > So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
> >
> > Input Process Output
> >
> > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error log
> > WAR by parsing the DD
> > EAR and applying correctness
> > RAR rules
> >
> >
> > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > standalone app and we must
> > design its internals in this spirit
> > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it
> > will get into the
> > geronimo frwk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> > engine/processor would be
> > very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> > be a standalone module
> > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > archive before ever even
> > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > course, you wouldn't be able
> > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> > tty when you go to
> > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > drawback....
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> >
> > me, poor choice of words
> >
> > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> >
> > "rules" as conditions
> > that
> >
> > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> >
> > in terms of a full blown
> >
> > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> >
> > interesting). At the very core
> >
> > > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> >
> > when applied to a
> >
> > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> >
> > for the archive to be
> >
> > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> >
> > that prevents archives
> >
> > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> >
> > started thinking abt this
> >
> > > > verifier..
> > > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> >
> > engines for designing
> > this
> >
> > > > verifier?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> >
> > rules engine where
> > certain
> >
> > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> >
> > successful "deployment". The most
> >
> > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> >
> > make this module
> >
> > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> >
> > know that specifications
> >
> > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> >
> > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> >
> > > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> >
> > would similarly have to
> >
> > > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> >
> > This could make for some
> >
> > > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > Of course we all know that specification
> >
> > requirements never change right
> >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> >
> > staarting point to gain
> >
> > > > familiarity
> > > >
> > > > > with the specs
> > > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this would actually be quite
> >
> > interesting to work on. Man, if
> >
> > > > > there is
> > > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> >
> > specs....this is it!
> >
> > > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> >
> > would be happy to help.
> >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for
> >
> > the deployment
> > verifier,
> >
> > > > > > both to learn more about the specs and
> >
> > (hopefully) help with the
> >
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some questions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's
> >
> > deployment verifier?
> >
> > > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I
> >
> > don't have commit
> >
> > > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send
> >
> > patches/codes that I
> > create?
> >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Denes
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: How can I post code?
Posted by Dragomir Milivojevic <dr...@milivojevic.net>.
Hi,
I've tgz-ed it up and uploaded to http://milivojevic.net/dm.tgz, it
isn't patch since they are new files and I wasn't sure about packaging.
I know we don't have a spec yet but having some code done helps
thinking process anyway. I'd be happy to work on the kernel bit... and
some guts as well.
-d-
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 03:19 PM, James Strachan wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 03:16 pm, Dragomir Milivojevic wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've got some kernel code written, how do I post it? presumably
>> someone has to approve it ...
>
> If you follow the links on this website...
>
> http://www.apache.org/~jstrachan/geronimo/
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/getinvolved.html
>
> in particular the contribute patches section...
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html#Patches
>
> i.e. post a patch to the list and we'll review it & commit.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
>
Re: How can I post code?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 03:16 pm, Dragomir Milivojevic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got some kernel code written, how do I post it? presumably
> someone has to approve it ...
If you follow the links on this website...
http://www.apache.org/~jstrachan/geronimo/
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/getinvolved.html
in particular the contribute patches section...
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html#Patches
i.e. post a patch to the list and we'll review it & commit.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
How can I post code?
Posted by Dragomir Milivojevic <dr...@milivojevic.net>.
Hi,
I've got some kernel code written, how do I post it? presumably someone
has to approve it ...
-d-
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
They are on the wiki page:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheJ2EE/J2eeSpecs
I haven't read the j2ee 1.4 specs to see what it says
yet.
--- Vikram Goyal <te...@craftbits.com> wrote:
> Are the minimum versions of the specifications
> specified anywhere as yet?
>
> Vikram
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Opacki" <ch...@yahoo.com>
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:46 PM
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> Yes.
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> > 1.4 spec
> > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> > specify the correct version
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > relations between deployable components and
> objects
> > in
> > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> interesting
> > read.
> >
> > --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>
> wrote:
> > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> > using
> > > the rule engine concept
> > > it will because of u:)
> > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> verifier
> > as
> > >
> > > Input Process Output
> > >
> > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error
> > log
> > > WAR by parsing the DD
> > > EAR and applying correctness
> > > RAR rules
> > >
> > >
> > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > standalone app and we must
> > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> > it
> > > will get into the
> > > geronimo frwk
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> verifier
> > > engine/processor would be
> > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> even
> > > be a standalone module
> > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > archive before ever even
> > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> > your
> > > tty when you go to
> > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > drawback....
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> Price
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> at
> > > me, poor choice of words
> > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> of
> > > "rules" as conditions
> > > that
> > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> > not
> > > in terms of a full blown
> > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > interesting). At the very core
> > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> that
> > > when applied to a
> > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> met
> > > for the archive to be
> > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> > watchdog
> > > that prevents archives
> > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > wrote:
> > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> i
> > > started thinking abt this
> > > > > verifier..
> > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> rule
> > > engines for designing
> > > this
> > > > > verifier?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > To: Srihari S;
> > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> reasons:
> > > > > What we are really talking about is a type
> of
> > > rules engine where
> > > certain
> > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > > successful "deployment". The most
> > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> to
> > > make this module
> > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> > all
> > > know that specifications
> > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> > > > > all its associated specifications) the
> engine
> > > would similarly have to
> > > > > grow as well and accommodate the new
> > standards.
> > > This could make for some
> > > > > interesting design and implementation
> > decisions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course we all know that specification
> > > requirements never change right
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> > > staarting point to gain
> > > > >
> > > > > familiarity
> > > > >
> > > > > > with the specs
> > > > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this would actually be quite
> > > interesting to work on. Man, if
> > > > > > there is
> > > > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> > > specs....this is it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this
> I
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Vikram Goyal <te...@craftbits.com>.
Are the minimum versions of the specifications specified anywhere as yet?
Vikram
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Opacki" <ch...@yahoo.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:46 PM
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Yes.
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> 1.4 spec
> lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> specify the correct version
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> weston_p@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> provides a high level architecture describe the
> relations between deployable components and objects
> in
> the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an interesting
> read.
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> using
> > the rule engine concept
> > it will because of u:)
> > So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier
> as
> >
> > Input Process Output
> >
> > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error
> log
> > WAR by parsing the DD
> > EAR and applying correctness
> > RAR rules
> >
> >
> > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > standalone app and we must
> > design its internals in this spirit
> > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> it
> > will get into the
> > geronimo frwk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> > engine/processor would be
> > very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> > be a standalone module
> > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > archive before ever even
> > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > course, you wouldn't be able
> > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> your
> > tty when you go to
> > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > drawback....
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> > me, poor choice of words
> > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> > "rules" as conditions
> > that
> > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> not
> > in terms of a full blown
> > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > interesting). At the very core
> > > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> > when applied to a
> > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> > for the archive to be
> > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> watchdog
> > that prevents archives
> > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > wrote:
> > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> > started thinking abt this
> > > > verifier..
> > > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> > engines for designing
> > this
> > > > verifier?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > To: Srihari S;
> geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> > rules engine where
> > certain
> > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > successful "deployment". The most
> > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> > make this module
> > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> all
> > know that specifications
> > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> > > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> > would similarly have to
> > > > grow as well and accommodate the new
> standards.
> > This could make for some
> > > > interesting design and implementation
> decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > Of course we all know that specification
> > requirements never change right
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> > wrote:
> > > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> > staarting point to gain
> > > >
> > > > familiarity
> > > >
> > > > > with the specs
> > > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this would actually be quite
> > interesting to work on. Man, if
> > > > > there is
> > > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> > specs....this is it!
> > > > >
> > > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> > would be happy to help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something
> for
> > the deployment
> > verifier,
> > > > > > both to learn more about the specs and
> > (hopefully) help with the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some questions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's
> > deployment verifier?
> > > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I
> > don't have commit
> > > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send
> > patches/codes that I
> > create?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Denes
> >
>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
Yes.
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> 1.4 spec
> lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> specify the correct version
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> weston_p@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> provides a high level architecture describe the
> relations between deployable components and objects
> in
> the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an interesting
> read.
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> using
> > the rule engine concept
> > it will because of u:)
> > So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier
> as
> >
> > Input Process Output
> >
> > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error
> log
> > WAR by parsing the DD
> > EAR and applying correctness
> > RAR rules
> >
> >
> > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > standalone app and we must
> > design its internals in this spirit
> > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> it
> > will get into the
> > geronimo frwk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> > engine/processor would be
> > very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> > be a standalone module
> > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > archive before ever even
> > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > course, you wouldn't be able
> > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> your
> > tty when you go to
> > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > drawback....
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> > me, poor choice of words
> > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> > "rules" as conditions
> > that
> > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> not
> > in terms of a full blown
> > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > interesting). At the very core
> > > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> > when applied to a
> > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> > for the archive to be
> > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> watchdog
> > that prevents archives
> > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > wrote:
> > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> > started thinking abt this
> > > > verifier..
> > > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> > engines for designing
> > this
> > > > verifier?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > To: Srihari S;
> geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> > rules engine where
> > certain
> > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > successful "deployment". The most
> > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> > make this module
> > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> all
> > know that specifications
> > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> > > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> > would similarly have to
> > > > grow as well and accommodate the new
> standards.
> > This could make for some
> > > > interesting design and implementation
> decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > Of course we all know that specification
> > requirements never change right
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> > wrote:
> > > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> > staarting point to gain
> > > >
> > > > familiarity
> > > >
> > > > > with the specs
> > > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this would actually be quite
> > interesting to work on. Man, if
> > > > > there is
> > > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> > specs....this is it!
> > > > >
> > > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> > would be happy to help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something
> for
> > the deployment
> > verifier,
> > > > > > both to learn more about the specs and
> > (hopefully) help with the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some questions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's
> > deployment verifier?
> > > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I
> > don't have commit
> > > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send
> > patches/codes that I
> > create?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Denes
> >
>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee 1.4 spec
lets have a common understanding on this...u cud specify the correct version
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org; weston_p@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
provides a high level architecture describe the
relations between deployable components and objects in
the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an interesting
read.
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using
> the rule engine concept
> it will because of u:)
> So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
>
> Input Process Output
>
> JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error log
> WAR by parsing the DD
> EAR and applying correctness
> RAR rules
>
>
> While it is true that the verifier can be a
> standalone app and we must
> design its internals in this spirit
> it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it
> will get into the
> geronimo frwk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> engine/processor would be
> very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> be a standalone module
> that would allow a developer to validate their
> archive before ever even
> trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> course, you wouldn't be able
> to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> tty when you go to
> deploy your archive; that would be the one
> drawback....
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> wrote:
> > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> me, poor choice of words
> > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> "rules" as conditions
> that
> > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> in terms of a full blown
> > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> interesting). At the very core
> > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> when applied to a
> > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> for the archive to be
> > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> that prevents archives
> > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> started thinking abt this
> > > verifier..
> > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> engines for designing
> this
> > > verifier?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> rules engine where
> certain
> > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> successful "deployment". The most
> > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> make this module
> > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> know that specifications
> > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> would similarly have to
> > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> This could make for some
> > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > Of course we all know that specification
> requirements never change right
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> staarting point to gain
> > >
> > > familiarity
> > >
> > > > with the specs
> > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this would actually be quite
> interesting to work on. Man, if
> > > > there is
> > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> specs....this is it!
> > > >
> > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> would be happy to help.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for
> the deployment
> verifier,
> > > > > both to learn more about the specs and
> (hopefully) help with the
> > > > > project.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's
> deployment verifier?
> > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I
> don't have commit
> > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send
> patches/codes that I
> create?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Denes
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
provides a high level architecture describe the
relations between deployable components and objects in
the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an interesting
read.
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using
> the rule engine concept
> it will because of u:)
> So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
>
> Input Process Output
>
> JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error log
> WAR by parsing the DD
> EAR and applying correctness
> RAR rules
>
>
> While it is true that the verifier can be a
> standalone app and we must
> design its internals in this spirit
> it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it
> will get into the
> geronimo frwk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> engine/processor would be
> very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> be a standalone module
> that would allow a developer to validate their
> archive before ever even
> trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> course, you wouldn't be able
> to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> tty when you go to
> deploy your archive; that would be the one
> drawback....
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> wrote:
> > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> me, poor choice of words
> > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> "rules" as conditions
> that
> > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> in terms of a full blown
> > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> interesting). At the very core
> > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> when applied to a
> > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> for the archive to be
> > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> that prevents archives
> > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> started thinking abt this
> > > verifier..
> > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> engines for designing
> this
> > > verifier?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> rules engine where
> certain
> > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> successful "deployment". The most
> > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> make this module
> > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> know that specifications
> > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> would similarly have to
> > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> This could make for some
> > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > Of course we all know that specification
> requirements never change right
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> staarting point to gain
> > >
> > > familiarity
> > >
> > > > with the specs
> > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this would actually be quite
> interesting to work on. Man, if
> > > > there is
> > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> specs....this is it!
> > > >
> > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> would be happy to help.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for
> the deployment
> verifier,
> > > > > both to learn more about the specs and
> (hopefully) help with the
> > > > > project.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's
> deployment verifier?
> > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I
> don't have commit
> > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send
> patches/codes that I
> create?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Denes
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
Hmmm...I am not sure it matters all that much, what we are really discussing
here is core functionality. There is not reason that we can't map what the
spec calls for to our engine/processor correct?
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 01:59 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> weston....your opinion...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:15 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> exactly that.
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > Correct me if i am wrong...based on the emerging
> > j2ee 1.4 stds any j2ee
> > server will have to use the deployment apis..
> > i mean the new javax.deployment apis...
> > my question is will the apis that ur suggesting end
> > up/can be adapted to
> > become an implementation of this javax.deployment
> > package?
> > I haven't started seeing this javax.deployment apis
> > spec...but just a
> > thought?
> > anyway we will have to write an implementation for
> > this pack also at some
> > point of time to get compliance..
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:32 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > I would say we start out by designing an API that
> > gerinomo can use to
> > verify deployments. Then we can build a stand alone
> > application around
> > that (basically put in a main function etc).
> >
> > I know a few people were talking about building a
> > GUI interface to
> > Gerinomo for deployment/monitoring. That may be a
> > good place to start
> > asking how they would like to integrate.
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Srihari S
> > [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:05 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using
> > the rule engine
> > concept
> > it will because of u:)
> > So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
> >
> > Input Process Output
> >
> > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
> > error log
> > WAR by parsing the DD
> > EAR and applying correctness
> > RAR rules
> >
> >
> > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > standalone app and we must
> > design its internals in this spirit
> > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it
> > will get into the
> > geronimo frwk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> > engine/processor would
> > be
> > very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> > be a standalone
> > module
> > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > archive before ever even
> > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > course, you wouldn't be
> > able
> > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> > tty when you go to
> > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > drawback....
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> >
> > me, poor choice of
> > words
> >
> > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> >
> > "rules" as conditions
> > that
> >
> > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> >
> > in terms of a full
> > blown
> >
> > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> >
> > interesting). At the very
> > core
> >
> > > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> >
> > when applied to a
> >
> > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> >
> > for the archive to be
> >
> > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> >
> > that prevents
> > archives
> >
> > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> >
> > started thinking abt
> > this
> >
> > > > verifier..
> > > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> >
> > engines for designing
> > this
> >
> > > > verifier?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> >
> > rules engine where
> > certain
> >
> > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> >
> > successful "deployment". The
> > most
> >
> > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> >
> > make this module
> >
> > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> >
> > know that
> > specifications
> >
> > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> >
> > Geronimo grows with J2EE
> > (and
> >
> > > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> >
> > would similarly have
> > to
> >
> > > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> >
> > This could make for
> > some
> >
> > > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > Of course we all know that specification
> >
> > requirements never change
> > right
> >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> >
> > staarting point to gain
> >
> > > > familiarity
> > > >
> > > > > with the specs
> > > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this would actually be quite
> >
> > interesting to work on. Man,
> > if
> >
> > > > > there is
> > > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> >
> > specs....this is it!
> >
> > > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> >
> > would be happy to
> > help.
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
The deployemnt api is an extension for j2ee 1.3 and a
qill be a requirement for j2ee 1.4. I haven't read it,
but it may be true for the management api.
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> weston....your opinion...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:15 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> exactly that.
>
> --- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > Correct me if i am wrong...based on the emerging
> > j2ee 1.4 stds any j2ee
> > server will have to use the deployment apis..
> > i mean the new javax.deployment apis...
> > my question is will the apis that ur suggesting
> end
> > up/can be adapted to
> > become an implementation of this javax.deployment
> > package?
> > I haven't started seeing this javax.deployment
> apis
> > spec...but just a
> > thought?
> > anyway we will have to write an implementation for
> > this pack also at some
> > point of time to get compliance..
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:32 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > I would say we start out by designing an API that
> > gerinomo can use to
> > verify deployments. Then we can build a stand
> alone
> > application around
> > that (basically put in a main function etc).
> >
> > I know a few people were talking about building a
> > GUI interface to
> > Gerinomo for deployment/monitoring. That may be a
> > good place to start
> > asking how they would like to integrate.
> >
> > ~Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Srihari S
> > [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:05 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> using
> > the rule engine
> > concept
> > it will because of u:)
> > So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier
> as
> >
> > Input Process Output
> >
> > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
> > error log
> > WAR by parsing the DD
> > EAR and applying correctness
> > RAR rules
> >
> >
> > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > standalone app and we must
> > design its internals in this spirit
> > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> it
> > will get into the
> > geronimo frwk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> > engine/processor would
> > be
> > very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> > be a standalone
> > module
> > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > archive before ever even
> > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > course, you wouldn't be
> > able
> > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> your
> > tty when you go to
> > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > drawback....
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> > me, poor choice of
> > words
> > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> > "rules" as conditions
> > that
> > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> not
> > in terms of a full
> > blown
> > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > interesting). At the very
> > core
> > > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> > when applied to a
> > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> > for the archive to be
> > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> watchdog
> > that prevents
> > archives
> > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > wrote:
> > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> > started thinking abt
> > this
> > > > verifier..
> > > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> > engines for designing
> > this
> > > > verifier?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > To: Srihari S;
> geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> > rules engine where
> > certain
> > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > successful "deployment". The
> > most
> > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> > make this module
> > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> all
> > know that
> > specifications
> > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > Geronimo grows with J2EE
> > (and
> > > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> > would similarly have
> > to
> > > > grow as well and accommodate the new
> standards.
> > This could make for
> > some
> > > > interesting design and implementation
> decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > Of course we all know that specification
> > requirements never change
> > right
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> > wrote:
> > > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
weston....your opinion...
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:15 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
exactly that.
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> Correct me if i am wrong...based on the emerging
> j2ee 1.4 stds any j2ee
> server will have to use the deployment apis..
> i mean the new javax.deployment apis...
> my question is will the apis that ur suggesting end
> up/can be adapted to
> become an implementation of this javax.deployment
> package?
> I haven't started seeing this javax.deployment apis
> spec...but just a
> thought?
> anyway we will have to write an implementation for
> this pack also at some
> point of time to get compliance..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:32 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> I would say we start out by designing an API that
> gerinomo can use to
> verify deployments. Then we can build a stand alone
> application around
> that (basically put in a main function etc).
>
> I know a few people were talking about building a
> GUI interface to
> Gerinomo for deployment/monitoring. That may be a
> good place to start
> asking how they would like to integrate.
>
> ~Jonathan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srihari S
> [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:05 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> weston_p@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using
> the rule engine
> concept
> it will because of u:)
> So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
>
> Input Process Output
>
> JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
> error log
> WAR by parsing the DD
> EAR and applying correctness
> RAR rules
>
>
> While it is true that the verifier can be a
> standalone app and we must
> design its internals in this spirit
> it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it
> will get into the
> geronimo frwk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> engine/processor would
> be
> very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> be a standalone
> module
> that would allow a developer to validate their
> archive before ever even
> trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> course, you wouldn't be
> able
> to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> tty when you go to
> deploy your archive; that would be the one
> drawback....
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> wrote:
> > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> me, poor choice of
> words
> > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> "rules" as conditions
> that
> > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> in terms of a full
> blown
> > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> interesting). At the very
> core
> > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> when applied to a
> > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> for the archive to be
> > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> that prevents
> archives
> > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> started thinking abt
> this
> > > verifier..
> > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> engines for designing
> this
> > > verifier?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> rules engine where
> certain
> > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> successful "deployment". The
> most
> > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> make this module
> > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> know that
> specifications
> > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> Geronimo grows with J2EE
> (and
> > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> would similarly have
> to
> > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> This could make for
> some
> > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > Of course we all know that specification
> requirements never change
> right
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> staarting point to gain
> > >
> > > familiarity
> > >
> > > > with the specs
> > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this would actually be quite
> interesting to work on. Man,
> if
> > > > there is
> > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> specs....this is it!
> > > >
> > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> would be happy to
> help.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
exactly that.
--- Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> Correct me if i am wrong...based on the emerging
> j2ee 1.4 stds any j2ee
> server will have to use the deployment apis..
> i mean the new javax.deployment apis...
> my question is will the apis that ur suggesting end
> up/can be adapted to
> become an implementation of this javax.deployment
> package?
> I haven't started seeing this javax.deployment apis
> spec...but just a
> thought?
> anyway we will have to write an implementation for
> this pack also at some
> point of time to get compliance..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:32 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> I would say we start out by designing an API that
> gerinomo can use to
> verify deployments. Then we can build a stand alone
> application around
> that (basically put in a main function etc).
>
> I know a few people were talking about building a
> GUI interface to
> Gerinomo for deployment/monitoring. That may be a
> good place to start
> asking how they would like to integrate.
>
> ~Jonathan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srihari S
> [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:05 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> weston_p@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
>
> never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using
> the rule engine
> concept
> it will because of u:)
> So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
>
> Input Process Output
>
> JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
> error log
> WAR by parsing the DD
> EAR and applying correctness
> RAR rules
>
>
> While it is true that the verifier can be a
> standalone app and we must
> design its internals in this spirit
> it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it
> will get into the
> geronimo frwk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> engine/processor would
> be
> very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> be a standalone
> module
> that would allow a developer to validate their
> archive before ever even
> trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> course, you wouldn't be
> able
> to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> tty when you go to
> deploy your archive; that would be the one
> drawback....
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> wrote:
> > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> me, poor choice of
> words
> > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> "rules" as conditions
> that
> > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> in terms of a full
> blown
> > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> interesting). At the very
> core
> > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> when applied to a
> > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> for the archive to be
> > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> that prevents
> archives
> > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> started thinking abt
> this
> > > verifier..
> > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> engines for designing
> this
> > > verifier?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> rules engine where
> certain
> > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> successful "deployment". The
> most
> > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> make this module
> > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> know that
> specifications
> > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> Geronimo grows with J2EE
> (and
> > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> would similarly have
> to
> > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> This could make for
> some
> > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > Of course we all know that specification
> requirements never change
> right
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> staarting point to gain
> > >
> > > familiarity
> > >
> > > > with the specs
> > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this would actually be quite
> interesting to work on. Man,
> if
> > > > there is
> > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> specs....this is it!
> > > >
> > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> would be happy to
> help.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
Correct me if i am wrong...based on the emerging j2ee 1.4 stds any j2ee
server will have to use the deployment apis..
i mean the new javax.deployment apis...
my question is will the apis that ur suggesting end up/can be adapted to
become an implementation of this javax.deployment package?
I haven't started seeing this javax.deployment apis spec...but just a
thought?
anyway we will have to write an implementation for this pack also at some
point of time to get compliance..
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:32 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
I would say we start out by designing an API that gerinomo can use to
verify deployments. Then we can build a stand alone application around
that (basically put in a main function etc).
I know a few people were talking about building a GUI interface to
Gerinomo for deployment/monitoring. That may be a good place to start
asking how they would like to integrate.
~Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Srihari S [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:05 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org; weston_p@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using the rule engine
concept
it will because of u:)
So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
Input Process Output
JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
error log
WAR by parsing the DD
EAR and applying correctness
RAR rules
While it is true that the verifier can be a standalone app and we must
design its internals in this spirit
it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it will get into the
geronimo frwk
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier engine/processor would
be
very useful in a number of projects; it could even be a standalone
module
that would allow a developer to validate their archive before ever even
trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of course, you wouldn't be
able
to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your tty when you go to
deploy your archive; that would be the one drawback....
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price wrote:
> Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at me, poor choice of
words
> on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of "rules" as conditions
that
> need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not in terms of a full
blown
> rules engine (though this would be somewhat interesting). At the very
core
> what you really have is a set of conditions that when applied to a
> deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met for the archive to be
> deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog that prevents
archives
> from violating a discreet set of constraints.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > i did not have this rule engine picture when i started thinking abt
this
> > verifier..
> > ru looking at the design of some open src rule engines for designing
this
> > verifier?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > What we are really talking about is a type of rules engine where
certain
> > conditions have to be met to achieve a successful "deployment". The
most
> > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to make this module
> > extensible and "forward looking" because we all know that
specifications
> > are static and never change right? :-) As Geronimo grows with J2EE
(and
> > all its associated specifications) the engine would similarly have
to
> > grow as well and accommodate the new standards. This could make for
some
> > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > Of course we all know that specification requirements never change
right
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S wrote:
> > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain
> >
> > familiarity
> >
> > > with the specs
> > > Count me in too.:))
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man,
if
> > > there is
> > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
> > >
> > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to
help.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment
verifier,
> > > > both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> > > > project.
> > > >
> > > > Some questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have
commit
> > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I
create?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Denes
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
I would say we start out by designing an API that gerinomo can use to
verify deployments. Then we can build a stand alone application around
that (basically put in a main function etc).
I know a few people were talking about building a GUI interface to
Gerinomo for deployment/monitoring. That may be a good place to start
asking how they would like to integrate.
~Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Srihari S [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:05 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org; weston_p@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using the rule engine
concept
it will because of u:)
So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
Input Process Output
JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with
error log
WAR by parsing the DD
EAR and applying correctness
RAR rules
While it is true that the verifier can be a standalone app and we must
design its internals in this spirit
it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it will get into the
geronimo frwk
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier engine/processor would
be
very useful in a number of projects; it could even be a standalone
module
that would allow a developer to validate their archive before ever even
trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of course, you wouldn't be
able
to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your tty when you go to
deploy your archive; that would be the one drawback....
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price wrote:
> Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at me, poor choice of
words
> on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of "rules" as conditions
that
> need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not in terms of a full
blown
> rules engine (though this would be somewhat interesting). At the very
core
> what you really have is a set of conditions that when applied to a
> deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met for the archive to be
> deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog that prevents
archives
> from violating a discreet set of constraints.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > i did not have this rule engine picture when i started thinking abt
this
> > verifier..
> > ru looking at the design of some open src rule engines for designing
this
> > verifier?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > What we are really talking about is a type of rules engine where
certain
> > conditions have to be met to achieve a successful "deployment". The
most
> > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to make this module
> > extensible and "forward looking" because we all know that
specifications
> > are static and never change right? :-) As Geronimo grows with J2EE
(and
> > all its associated specifications) the engine would similarly have
to
> > grow as well and accommodate the new standards. This could make for
some
> > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > Of course we all know that specification requirements never change
right
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S wrote:
> > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain
> >
> > familiarity
> >
> > > with the specs
> > > Count me in too.:))
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man,
if
> > > there is
> > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
> > >
> > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to
help.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment
verifier,
> > > > both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> > > > project.
> > > >
> > > > Some questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have
commit
> > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I
create?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Denes
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using the rule engine concept
it will because of u:)
So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as
Input Process Output
JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error log
WAR by parsing the DD
EAR and applying correctness
RAR rules
While it is true that the verifier can be a standalone app and we must
design its internals in this spirit
it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it will get into the
geronimo frwk
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier engine/processor would be
very useful in a number of projects; it could even be a standalone module
that would allow a developer to validate their archive before ever even
trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of course, you wouldn't be able
to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your tty when you go to
deploy your archive; that would be the one drawback....
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price wrote:
> Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at me, poor choice of words
> on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of "rules" as conditions
that
> need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not in terms of a full blown
> rules engine (though this would be somewhat interesting). At the very core
> what you really have is a set of conditions that when applied to a
> deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met for the archive to be
> deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog that prevents archives
> from violating a discreet set of constraints.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > i did not have this rule engine picture when i started thinking abt this
> > verifier..
> > ru looking at the design of some open src rule engines for designing
this
> > verifier?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > What we are really talking about is a type of rules engine where
certain
> > conditions have to be met to achieve a successful "deployment". The most
> > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to make this module
> > extensible and "forward looking" because we all know that specifications
> > are static and never change right? :-) As Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> > all its associated specifications) the engine would similarly have to
> > grow as well and accommodate the new standards. This could make for some
> > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > Of course we all know that specification requirements never change right
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S wrote:
> > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain
> >
> > familiarity
> >
> > > with the specs
> > > Count me in too.:))
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man, if
> > > there is
> > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
> > >
> > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to help.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment
verifier,
> > > > both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> > > > project.
> > > >
> > > > Some questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
> > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I
create?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Denes
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
I actually was thinking more in terms of verification as a seperate step from
actual deployment.
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 01:23 pm, Chris Opacki wrote:
> The deployment spec has defined the deployment manager
> responsibilities and the tool's responsibilities
> fairly well. It definitely requires in depth knowledge
> of the separate deployable objects.
>
> --- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> > engine/processor would be
> > very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> > be a standalone module
> > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > archive before ever even
> > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > course, you wouldn't be able
> > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> > tty when you go to
> > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > drawback....
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> >
> > me, poor choice of words
> >
> > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> >
> > "rules" as conditions that
> >
> > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> >
> > in terms of a full blown
> >
> > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> >
> > interesting). At the very core
> >
> > > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> >
> > when applied to a
> >
> > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> >
> > for the archive to be
> >
> > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> >
> > that prevents archives
> >
> > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> >
> > started thinking abt this
> >
> > > > verifier..
> > > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> >
> > engines for designing this
> >
> > > > verifier?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> >
> > rules engine where certain
> >
> > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> >
> > successful "deployment". The most
> >
> > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> >
> > make this module
> >
> > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> >
> > know that specifications
> >
> > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> >
> > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> >
> > > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> >
> > would similarly have to
> >
> > > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> >
> > This could make for some
> >
> > > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > Of course we all know that specification
> >
> > requirements never change right
> >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> >
> > staarting point to gain
> >
> > > > familiarity
> > > >
> > > > > with the specs
> > > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this would actually be quite
> >
> > interesting to work on. Man, if
> >
> > > > > there is
> > > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> >
> > specs....this is it!
> >
> > > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> >
> > would be happy to help.
> >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for
> >
> > the deployment verifier,
> >
> > > > > > both to learn more about the specs and
> >
> > (hopefully) help with the
> >
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some questions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's
> >
> > deployment verifier?
> >
> > > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I
> >
> > don't have commit
> >
> > > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send
> >
> > patches/codes that I create?
> >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Denes
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Chris Opacki <ch...@yahoo.com>.
The deployment spec has defined the deployment manager
responsibilities and the tool's responsibilities
fairly well. It definitely requires in depth knowledge
of the separate deployable objects.
--- "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier
> engine/processor would be
> very useful in a number of projects; it could even
> be a standalone module
> that would allow a developer to validate their
> archive before ever even
> trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> course, you wouldn't be able
> to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your
> tty when you go to
> deploy your archive; that would be the one
> drawback....
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price
> wrote:
> > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at
> me, poor choice of words
> > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of
> "rules" as conditions that
> > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not
> in terms of a full blown
> > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> interesting). At the very core
> > what you really have is a set of conditions that
> when applied to a
> > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met
> for the archive to be
> > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog
> that prevents archives
> > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i
> started thinking abt this
> > > verifier..
> > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule
> engines for designing this
> > > verifier?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > > What we are really talking about is a type of
> rules engine where certain
> > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> successful "deployment". The most
> > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to
> make this module
> > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all
> know that specifications
> > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> > > all its associated specifications) the engine
> would similarly have to
> > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards.
> This could make for some
> > > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > Of course we all know that specification
> requirements never change right
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S
> wrote:
> > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good
> staarting point to gain
> > >
> > > familiarity
> > >
> > > > with the specs
> > > > Count me in too.:))
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this would actually be quite
> interesting to work on. Man, if
> > > > there is
> > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE
> specs....this is it!
> > > >
> > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I
> would be happy to help.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes
> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for
> the deployment verifier,
> > > > > both to learn more about the specs and
> (hopefully) help with the
> > > > > project.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's
> deployment verifier?
> > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I
> don't have commit
> > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send
> patches/codes that I create?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Denes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier engine/processor would be
very useful in a number of projects; it could even be a standalone module
that would allow a developer to validate their archive before ever even
trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of course, you wouldn't be able
to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your tty when you go to
deploy your archive; that would be the one drawback....
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price wrote:
> Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at me, poor choice of words
> on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of "rules" as conditions that
> need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not in terms of a full blown
> rules engine (though this would be somewhat interesting). At the very core
> what you really have is a set of conditions that when applied to a
> deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met for the archive to be
> deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog that prevents archives
> from violating a discreet set of constraints.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > i did not have this rule engine picture when i started thinking abt this
> > verifier..
> > ru looking at the design of some open src rule engines for designing this
> > verifier?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> > What we are really talking about is a type of rules engine where certain
> > conditions have to be met to achieve a successful "deployment". The most
> > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to make this module
> > extensible and "forward looking" because we all know that specifications
> > are static and never change right? :-) As Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
> > all its associated specifications) the engine would similarly have to
> > grow as well and accommodate the new standards. This could make for some
> > interesting design and implementation decisions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > Of course we all know that specification requirements never change right
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S wrote:
> > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain
> >
> > familiarity
> >
> > > with the specs
> > > Count me in too.:))
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man, if
> > > there is
> > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
> > >
> > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to help.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
> > > > both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> > > > project.
> > > >
> > > > Some questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
> > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Denes
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at me, poor choice of words on
my part. I was basically thinking in terms of "rules" as conditions that need
to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not in terms of a full blown rules
engine (though this would be somewhat interesting). At the very core what you
really have is a set of conditions that when applied to a deployable unit
(EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met for the archive to be deployed. A verifier
exists as sort of a watchdog that prevents archives from violating a discreet
set of constraints.
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> i did not have this rule engine picture when i started thinking abt this
> verifier..
> ru looking at the design of some open src rule engines for designing this
> verifier?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
> What we are really talking about is a type of rules engine where certain
> conditions have to be met to achieve a successful "deployment". The most
> intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to make this module extensible
> and "forward looking" because we all know that specifications are static
> and never change right? :-) As Geronimo grows with J2EE (and all its
> associated specifications) the engine would similarly have to grow as well
> and accommodate the new standards. This could make for some interesting
> design and implementation decisions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> Of course we all know that specification requirements never change right
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S wrote:
> > I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain
>
> familiarity
>
> > with the specs
> > Count me in too.:))
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >
> >
> > I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man, if
> > there is
> > a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
> >
> > If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to help.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Weston
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
> > > both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> > > project.
> > >
> > > Some questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
> > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Denes
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
i did not have this rule engine picture when i started thinking abt this
verifier..
ru looking at the design of some open src rule engines for designing this
verifier?
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
To: Srihari S; geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
What we are really talking about is a type of rules engine where certain
conditions have to be met to achieve a successful "deployment". The most
intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to make this module extensible
and "forward looking" because we all know that specifications are static and
never change right? :-) As Geronimo grows with J2EE (and all its associated
specifications) the engine would similarly have to grow as well and
accommodate the new standards. This could make for some interesting design
and implementation decisions.
Regards,
Weston
Of course we all know that specification requirements never change right
On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S wrote:
> I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain
familiarity
> with the specs
> Count me in too.:))
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man, if there
> is
> a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
>
> If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
> > both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> > project.
> >
> > Some questions:
> >
> > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> > 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
> > permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Denes
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
It's an interesting subject for a few reasons:
What we are really talking about is a type of rules engine where certain
conditions have to be met to achieve a successful "deployment". The most
intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to make this module extensible
and "forward looking" because we all know that specifications are static and
never change right? :-) As Geronimo grows with J2EE (and all its associated
specifications) the engine would similarly have to grow as well and
accommodate the new standards. This could make for some interesting design
and implementation decisions.
Regards,
Weston
Of course we all know that specification requirements never change right
On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S wrote:
> I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain familiarity
> with the specs
> Count me in too.:))
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
> I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man, if there
> is
> a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
>
> If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Weston
>
> On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
> > both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> > project.
> >
> > Some questions:
> >
> > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> > 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
> > permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Denes
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain familiarity
with the specs
Count me in too.:))
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man, if there
is
a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to help.
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
> both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> project.
>
> Some questions:
>
> 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
> permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
>
> Thanks
> Denes
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man, if there is
a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it!
If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to help.
Regards,
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
> both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> project.
>
> Some questions:
>
> 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
> 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
> 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
> permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
>
> Thanks
> Denes
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>.
This is a great opportunity to become very familiar with the J2EE specs.
If there is any room for me I'd love to help out with this project. Let
me know where I can jump in.
If we write this as a module that could also be used outside the Apache
J2EE (i.e. something that I could run against my ear archive to check
it), then jakarta-commons may also be a good place to put this project.
~Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Denes [mailto:denes@ppgia.pucpr.br]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:03 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: J2EE deployment verifier
Hi Folks,
I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
project.
Some questions:
1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit
permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
Thanks
Denes
RES: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Denes <de...@ppgia.pucpr.br>.
Hi All,
Trying to answer several messages about this thread in just one. Hope
that works.
- About using openEJB's validator:
IMHO it's better to write Geronimo's own validator than use
openEJB's, unless someone thinks otherwise. The main reason is, as far
as I can see in the code, that openEJB's validator is created to be an
external tool, and the validator works only on the jar file of the ejb
classes.
- About all the discussion about the validator:
First, I would like to say hi to Chris, Jonathan, Weston, Hari
and others (much replies while I was sleeping.). Sorry about loosing the
initial discussion but I think that I'm in disadvantage about time
zones.
What I'm thinking about this module is that it should be only
an ear verification module, and not a deployer tool / API. It would be
used by the deployer tool to validate the archive, by the server to
revalidate the archive on startup and by any tool that wants to.
I agree that this module will have to have a very easily
extensible/maintainable engine for the rules, as they will change a lot
on future. My belief now is that a simple Chain of Responsibility where
each J2EE rule that will be verified will have its own class will be
sufficient, but I'm thinking about the performance of this approach.
For the errors, I think that an object like the ActionError of
Struts will be more likeable to be easily incorporated by any tool that
will want to use the validator that an exception or a string message,
don't you think?
I'm working on the class diagram of what I'm thinking, and I'm
intending to send it in an image format to the list in a few days to
discussion. Is that alright?
Thanks
Denes
-----Mensagem original-----
De: James Strachan [mailto:james_strachan@yahoo.co.uk]
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 11 de agosto de 2003 03:42
Para: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Assunto: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 06:03 am, Denes wrote:
Hi Folks,
I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
project.
Some questions:
1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
AFAIK no
2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
No idea. Could be?
3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit permission
on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html#Patches
Just mail a patch to this list.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 06:03 am, Denes wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> I’m intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier,
> both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the
> project.
>
>
>
> Some questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Is there anybody working on this issue?
AFAIK no
> 2. Will this be based on openEJB’s deployment verifier?
No idea. Could be?
> 3. Something that I never understood… As I don’t have commit
> permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html#Patches
Just mail a patch to this list.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Posted by Srihari S <sr...@blr.pin.philips.com>.
Hi Denes,
Some time back i was thinking on similar lines...but did not carry forward
the idea.
If i understand correctly you are thinking abt creating a program that
checks if the deployment descriptor written is correct or not.
Am i right...anyway please elaborate on your idea.
regards
Hari
-----Original Message-----
From: Denes [mailto:denes@ppgia.pucpr.br]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:33 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: J2EE deployment verifier
Hi Folks,
I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier, both
to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the project.
Some questions:
1.. Is there anybody working on this issue?
2.. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier?
3.. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit permission
on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create?
Thanks
Denes