You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> on 2006/09/04 16:38:41 UTC
console & deployer dependencies
Hi All,
The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like this;
08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided ClassLoader
for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.configs
/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from the
<artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies in the
webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
Could someone who knows more about the console than me please review
the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
And apply it if it makes sense?
Thanks!
-bd-
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Anita,
This patch should not effect the datasource stuff at all, you can see
the effect from the 'Server Logs' or any number of the console 'main
functions' in the menu on the left. The error in your log file looks
to me like a mysql server problem (reboot the server or something I'd
say) and has nothing to do with the console.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:56 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> Nop.. I tried deploying MYSQL DBPool using the wizard. The
> deployment was successful, but I got a stack trace. There was a stack
> trace during shutdown (see the attached log). So I decided to get the
> latest source. I have been getting openejb (rev 2897) compile failures
> due to:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2354
> I will give it a try again later today.
>
> Did everything deploy cleanly for you?
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
> --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anita,
>>
>> Any luck? Any further thoughts? I'm happy to help in anyway I can to
>>
>> get this resolved.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -bd-
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2006, at 8:31 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>>
>>> inline..
>>>
>>> --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Anita,
>>>>
>>>> initial patch? The patch I posted had a single deleted line from
>> each
>>>>
>>>> pom.
>>>
>>> If it does not break anything else, I am OK with it. You should
>>> delete o/a/g/configs directory in .m2 repo, and build all the
>> configs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just trying to understand the question.
>>>>
>>>> On the j2ee-deployer being added; That was a result of other
>> issues
>>>> with dependencies being missed. Starting with (I believe)
>>>>
>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2326
>>>
>>> Thanks for the info. It is indeed a lot.. I will get back to
>> you.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Anita
>>>>
>>>> There were many many problems solved by adding that parent config
>>>> without causing other issues. I believe the whole conversation
>> took
>>>> place in that JIRA so hopefully there is enough info there to
>> inform
>>>>
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> As to the #2 issue/question I'm not sure, but from my current
>> vantage
>>>>
>>>> point with more experience of car stacking perhaps getting the
>>>> tomcat-
>>>> deployer config correct would fix both 2326 & this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> -bd-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:58 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill,
>>>>> The webconsole-tomcat config differs from the original patch.
>> To
>>>>> answer your question correctly, I need to understand why:
>>>>> 1. The j2ee-deployer config was added as a parent configuration.
>>>>> 2. The tomcat-deployer config was changed so that tomcat config
>> is
>>>> not
>>>>> a parent of tomcat-deployer config.
>>>>> I am searching the archives/jiras. I need to do some testing..
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Anita
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anita,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While the jar's are not required in the class loader, without
>> them
>>>>>> the warning messages are printed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have ideas about how to get rid of the warning messages
>> and
>>>>>> keep the 'provided' scope?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I prefer pushing all the methods into the 'super
>>>> interface'
>>>>>> and having an UnsupportedOperationException as long as there are
>>>> good
>>>>>>
>>>>>> error messages as to what has happened (i.e. 'a method was
>> invoked
>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the Jetty container that is not supported, perhaps you wanted to
>>>> use
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tomcat instead?' or something less cheesy).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway I'm not sure of the best way to handle this but I don't
>>>> like
>>>>>> the warning messages. I think they would look ominous to initial
>>>>>> users then over time users would stop worrying about warning
>>>>>> messages. Which is bad IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TTFN,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -bd-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not
>> "provided"
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> might as well either not list it or list it as a regular
>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for
>>>> the
>>>>>>> configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the
>>>>>> jetty/tomcat
>>>>>>> deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars
>>>> are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> required in the classloader.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Anita
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages
>>>> like
>>>>>>>> this;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load
>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
>>>>>>>> ClassLoader
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>> org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
>>>>>>>>>>> igs
>>>>>>>>>>> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope>
>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId>
>> dependencies
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could someone who knows more about the console than me
>> please
>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And apply it if it makes sense?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -bd-
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>>>>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> <err.log>
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
Nop.. I tried deploying MYSQL DBPool using the wizard. The
deployment was successful, but I got a stack trace. There was a stack
trace during shutdown (see the attached log). So I decided to get the
latest source. I have been getting openejb (rev 2897) compile failures
due to:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2354
I will give it a try again later today.
Did everything deploy cleanly for you?
Thanks
Anita
--- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Anita,
>
> Any luck? Any further thoughts? I'm happy to help in anyway I can to
>
> get this resolved.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -bd-
>
> On Sep 6, 2006, at 8:31 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>
> > inline..
> >
> > --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Anita,
> >>
> >> initial patch? The patch I posted had a single deleted line from
> each
> >>
> >> pom.
> >
> > If it does not break anything else, I am OK with it. You should
> > delete o/a/g/configs directory in .m2 repo, and build all the
> configs.
> >
> >
> > Just trying to understand the question.
> >>
> >> On the j2ee-deployer being added; That was a result of other
> issues
> >> with dependencies being missed. Starting with (I believe)
> >>
> >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2326
> >
> > Thanks for the info. It is indeed a lot.. I will get back to
> you.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Anita
> >>
> >> There were many many problems solved by adding that parent config
> >> without causing other issues. I believe the whole conversation
> took
> >> place in that JIRA so hopefully there is enough info there to
> inform
> >>
> >> you.
> >>
> >> As to the #2 issue/question I'm not sure, but from my current
> vantage
> >>
> >> point with more experience of car stacking perhaps getting the
> >> tomcat-
> >> deployer config correct would fix both 2326 & this issue.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -bd-
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:58 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bill,
> >>> The webconsole-tomcat config differs from the original patch.
> To
> >>> answer your question correctly, I need to understand why:
> >>> 1. The j2ee-deployer config was added as a parent configuration.
> >>> 2. The tomcat-deployer config was changed so that tomcat config
> is
> >> not
> >>> a parent of tomcat-deployer config.
> >>> I am searching the archives/jiras. I need to do some testing..
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Anita
> >>>
> >>> --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Anita,
> >>>>
> >>>> While the jar's are not required in the class loader, without
> them
> >>>> the warning messages are printed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have ideas about how to get rid of the warning messages
> and
> >>>> keep the 'provided' scope?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I prefer pushing all the methods into the 'super
> >> interface'
> >>>> and having an UnsupportedOperationException as long as there are
> >> good
> >>>>
> >>>> error messages as to what has happened (i.e. 'a method was
> invoked
> >> on
> >>>>
> >>>> the Jetty container that is not supported, perhaps you wanted to
> >> use
> >>>>
> >>>> Tomcat instead?' or something less cheesy).
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway I'm not sure of the best way to handle this but I don't
> >> like
> >>>> the warning messages. I think they would look ominous to initial
> >>>> users then over time users would stop worrying about warning
> >>>> messages. Which is bad IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>> TTFN,
> >>>>
> >>>> -bd-
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if
> >>>> that's
> >>>>>> what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not
> "provided"
> >>>> so
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>> might as well either not list it or list it as a regular
> >>>> dependency.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for
> >> the
> >>>>> configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the
> >>>> jetty/tomcat
> >>>>> deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars
> >> are
> >>>> not
> >>>>> required in the classloader.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> Anita
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages
> >> like
> >>>>>> this;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load
> >> interface
> >>>>>>>>> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
> >>>>>> ClassLoader
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >> org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
> >>>>>>>>> igs
> >>>>>>>>> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope>
> >> from
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId>
> dependencies
> >>>> in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Could someone who knows more about the console than me
> please
> >>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And apply it if it makes sense?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -bd-
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Anita,
Any luck? Any further thoughts? I'm happy to help in anyway I can to
get this resolved.
Thanks,
-bd-
On Sep 6, 2006, at 8:31 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> inline..
>
> --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anita,
>>
>> initial patch? The patch I posted had a single deleted line from each
>>
>> pom.
>
> If it does not break anything else, I am OK with it. You should
> delete o/a/g/configs directory in .m2 repo, and build all the configs.
>
>
> Just trying to understand the question.
>>
>> On the j2ee-deployer being added; That was a result of other issues
>> with dependencies being missed. Starting with (I believe)
>>
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2326
>
> Thanks for the info. It is indeed a lot.. I will get back to you.
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>>
>> There were many many problems solved by adding that parent config
>> without causing other issues. I believe the whole conversation took
>> place in that JIRA so hopefully there is enough info there to inform
>>
>> you.
>>
>> As to the #2 issue/question I'm not sure, but from my current vantage
>>
>> point with more experience of car stacking perhaps getting the
>> tomcat-
>> deployer config correct would fix both 2326 & this issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -bd-
>>
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:58 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>>
>>> Bill,
>>> The webconsole-tomcat config differs from the original patch. To
>>> answer your question correctly, I need to understand why:
>>> 1. The j2ee-deployer config was added as a parent configuration.
>>> 2. The tomcat-deployer config was changed so that tomcat config is
>> not
>>> a parent of tomcat-deployer config.
>>> I am searching the archives/jiras. I need to do some testing..
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Anita
>>>
>>> --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anita,
>>>>
>>>> While the jar's are not required in the class loader, without them
>>>> the warning messages are printed.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have ideas about how to get rid of the warning messages and
>>>> keep the 'provided' scope?
>>>>
>>>> I think I prefer pushing all the methods into the 'super
>> interface'
>>>> and having an UnsupportedOperationException as long as there are
>> good
>>>>
>>>> error messages as to what has happened (i.e. 'a method was invoked
>> on
>>>>
>>>> the Jetty container that is not supported, perhaps you wanted to
>> use
>>>>
>>>> Tomcat instead?' or something less cheesy).
>>>>
>>>> Anyway I'm not sure of the best way to handle this but I don't
>> like
>>>> the warning messages. I think they would look ominous to initial
>>>> users then over time users would stop worrying about warning
>>>> messages. Which is bad IMO.
>>>>
>>>> TTFN,
>>>>
>>>> -bd-
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if
>>>> that's
>>>>>> what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not "provided"
>>>> so
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> might as well either not list it or list it as a regular
>>>> dependency.
>>>>>
>>>>> The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for
>> the
>>>>> configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the
>>>> jetty/tomcat
>>>>> deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars
>> are
>>>> not
>>>>> required in the classloader.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Anita
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages
>> like
>>>>>> this;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load
>> interface
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
>>>>>> ClassLoader
>>>>>>>>> for
>> org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
>>>>>>>>> igs
>>>>>>>>> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope>
>> from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies
>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please
>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And apply it if it makes sense?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -bd-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
inline..
--- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Anita,
>
> initial patch? The patch I posted had a single deleted line from each
>
> pom.
If it does not break anything else, I am OK with it. You should
delete o/a/g/configs directory in .m2 repo, and build all the configs.
Just trying to understand the question.
>
> On the j2ee-deployer being added; That was a result of other issues
> with dependencies being missed. Starting with (I believe)
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2326
Thanks for the info. It is indeed a lot.. I will get back to you.
Thanks
Anita
>
> There were many many problems solved by adding that parent config
> without causing other issues. I believe the whole conversation took
> place in that JIRA so hopefully there is enough info there to inform
>
> you.
>
> As to the #2 issue/question I'm not sure, but from my current vantage
>
> point with more experience of car stacking perhaps getting the
> tomcat-
> deployer config correct would fix both 2326 & this issue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -bd-
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:58 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> > The webconsole-tomcat config differs from the original patch. To
> > answer your question correctly, I need to understand why:
> > 1. The j2ee-deployer config was added as a parent configuration.
> > 2. The tomcat-deployer config was changed so that tomcat config is
> not
> > a parent of tomcat-deployer config.
> > I am searching the archives/jiras. I need to do some testing..
> >
> > Thanks
> > Anita
> >
> > --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Anita,
> >>
> >> While the jar's are not required in the class loader, without them
> >> the warning messages are printed.
> >>
> >> Do you have ideas about how to get rid of the warning messages and
> >> keep the 'provided' scope?
> >>
> >> I think I prefer pushing all the methods into the 'super
> interface'
> >> and having an UnsupportedOperationException as long as there are
> good
> >>
> >> error messages as to what has happened (i.e. 'a method was invoked
> on
> >>
> >> the Jetty container that is not supported, perhaps you wanted to
> use
> >>
> >> Tomcat instead?' or something less cheesy).
> >>
> >> Anyway I'm not sure of the best way to handle this but I don't
> like
> >> the warning messages. I think they would look ominous to initial
> >> users then over time users would stop worrying about warning
> >> messages. Which is bad IMO.
> >>
> >> TTFN,
> >>
> >> -bd-
> >>
> >> On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if
> >> that's
> >>>> what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not "provided"
> >> so
> >>>> we
> >>>> might as well either not list it or list it as a regular
> >> dependency.
> >>>
> >>> The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for
> the
> >>> configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the
> >> jetty/tomcat
> >>> deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars
> are
> >> not
> >>> required in the classloader.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Anita
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages
> like
> >>>> this;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load
> interface
> >>>>>>> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
> >>>> ClassLoader
> >>>>>>> for
> org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
> >>>>>>> igs
> >>>>>>> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope>
> from
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies
> >> in
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please
> >>>> review
> >>>>>>> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And apply it if it makes sense?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -bd-
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Do You Yahoo!?
> >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >>> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Anita,
initial patch? The patch I posted had a single deleted line from each
pom. Just trying to understand the question.
On the j2ee-deployer being added; That was a result of other issues
with dependencies being missed. Starting with (I believe)
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2326
There were many many problems solved by adding that parent config
without causing other issues. I believe the whole conversation took
place in that JIRA so hopefully there is enough info there to inform
you.
As to the #2 issue/question I'm not sure, but from my current vantage
point with more experience of car stacking perhaps getting the tomcat-
deployer config correct would fix both 2326 & this issue.
Thanks,
-bd-
On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:58 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> Bill,
> The webconsole-tomcat config differs from the original patch. To
> answer your question correctly, I need to understand why:
> 1. The j2ee-deployer config was added as a parent configuration.
> 2. The tomcat-deployer config was changed so that tomcat config is not
> a parent of tomcat-deployer config.
> I am searching the archives/jiras. I need to do some testing..
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
> --- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Anita,
>>
>> While the jar's are not required in the class loader, without them
>> the warning messages are printed.
>>
>> Do you have ideas about how to get rid of the warning messages and
>> keep the 'provided' scope?
>>
>> I think I prefer pushing all the methods into the 'super interface'
>> and having an UnsupportedOperationException as long as there are good
>>
>> error messages as to what has happened (i.e. 'a method was invoked on
>>
>> the Jetty container that is not supported, perhaps you wanted to use
>>
>> Tomcat instead?' or something less cheesy).
>>
>> Anyway I'm not sure of the best way to handle this but I don't like
>> the warning messages. I think they would look ominous to initial
>> users then over time users would stop worrying about warning
>> messages. Which is bad IMO.
>>
>> TTFN,
>>
>> -bd-
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if
>> that's
>>>> what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not "provided"
>> so
>>>> we
>>>> might as well either not list it or list it as a regular
>> dependency.
>>>
>>> The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for the
>>> configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the
>> jetty/tomcat
>>> deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars are
>> not
>>> required in the classloader.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Anita
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like
>>>> this;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
>>>>>>> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
>>>> ClassLoader
>>>>>>> for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
>>>>>>> igs
>>>>>>> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from
>>>> the
>>>>>>> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies
>> in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please
>>>> review
>>>>>>> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And apply it if it makes sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -bd-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
Bill,
The webconsole-tomcat config differs from the original patch. To
answer your question correctly, I need to understand why:
1. The j2ee-deployer config was added as a parent configuration.
2. The tomcat-deployer config was changed so that tomcat config is not
a parent of tomcat-deployer config.
I am searching the archives/jiras. I need to do some testing..
Thanks
Anita
--- Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Anita,
>
> While the jar's are not required in the class loader, without them
> the warning messages are printed.
>
> Do you have ideas about how to get rid of the warning messages and
> keep the 'provided' scope?
>
> I think I prefer pushing all the methods into the 'super interface'
> and having an UnsupportedOperationException as long as there are good
>
> error messages as to what has happened (i.e. 'a method was invoked on
>
> the Jetty container that is not supported, perhaps you wanted to use
>
> Tomcat instead?' or something less cheesy).
>
> Anyway I'm not sure of the best way to handle this but I don't like
> the warning messages. I think they would look ominous to initial
> users then over time users would stop worrying about warning
> messages. Which is bad IMO.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
> On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>
> >
> >> I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if
> that's
> >> what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not "provided"
> so
> >> we
> >> might as well either not list it or list it as a regular
> dependency.
> >
> > The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for the
> > configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the
> jetty/tomcat
> > deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars are
> not
> > required in the classloader.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Anita
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like
> >> this;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
> >>>>> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
> >> ClassLoader
> >>>>> for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
> >>>>>
> >>
> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
> >>>>> igs
> >>>>> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from
> >> the
> >>>>> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies
> in
> >> the
> >>>>> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please
> >> review
> >>>>> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And apply it if it makes sense?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -bd-
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org>.
Anita,
While the jar's are not required in the class loader, without them
the warning messages are printed.
Do you have ideas about how to get rid of the warning messages and
keep the 'provided' scope?
I think I prefer pushing all the methods into the 'super interface'
and having an UnsupportedOperationException as long as there are good
error messages as to what has happened (i.e. 'a method was invoked on
the Jetty container that is not supported, perhaps you wanted to use
Tomcat instead?' or something less cheesy).
Anyway I'm not sure of the best way to handle this but I don't like
the warning messages. I think they would look ominous to initial
users then over time users would stop worrying about warning
messages. Which is bad IMO.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if that's
>> what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not "provided" so
>> we
>> might as well either not list it or list it as a regular dependency.
>
> The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for the
> configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the jetty/tomcat
> deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars are not
> required in the classloader.
>
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like
>> this;
>>>>>
>>>>> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
>>>>> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
>> ClassLoader
>>>>> for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
>>>>>
>> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
>>>>> igs
>>>>> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from
>> the
>>>>> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies in
>> the
>>>>> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please
>> review
>>>>> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
>>>>>
>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
>>>>>
>>>>> And apply it if it makes sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> -bd-
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
> I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if that's
> what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not "provided" so
> we
> might as well either not list it or list it as a regular dependency.
The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for the
configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the jetty/tomcat
deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars are not
required in the classloader.
Thanks
Anita
> > >
> > > On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like
> this;
> > >>
> > >> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
> > >> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
> ClassLoader
> > >> for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
> > >>
> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
> > >> igs
> > >> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
> > >>
> > >> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from
> the
> > >> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies in
> the
> > >> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
> > >>
> > >> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please
> review
> > >> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
> > >>
> > >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
> > >>
> > >> And apply it if it makes sense?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >> -bd-
> > >>
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Now making sure I understood what you said the cause of the error
> message is. Since the jetty-deployer is 'provided' scope it is not
> added explicitly to the class loader for the console. The jetty-
> deloyer has the interface and impl for JettyWebAppContext. Since the
> jar that this interface is in is not explicitly added to the
> console's class path (because of 'provided' if I understand
> correctly) it barfs.
I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if that's
what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not "provided" so we
might as well either not list it or list it as a regular dependency.
We should also make sure to do the same thing for the Tomcat and Jetty
console modules, just each with their respective JARs.
Note that it's not a "big barf" -- it just means we won't be able to
call server-specific methods using the interface that couldn't be
loaded (only the generic methods in the superinterface). That's not
necessarily disastrous, but it would be nice if we could avoid it. It
depends on whether we'd normally want to be able to use the extra
methods or not.
I guess there's also a third option, which is to get rid of any
functionality in the server-specific intrefaces (putting everything in
the generic interface) and force each server to just throw an
UnsupportedOperationException for any methods that it can't handle.
Thanks,
Aaron
> On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > It's actually the proxy manager that produces those messages. It
> > means that the console asked for a proxy to some GBean, and some of
> > the interfaces implemented by that GBean weren't available in the
> > caller's (the console's) class loader.
> >
> > It would be nice to have a larger discussion about how to handle this.
> > For example, do we package all management interfaces in separate JARs
> > from the core libraries (Jetty, Tomcat, ActiveMQ, etc.) so that the
> > console can add only the interfaces to its class loader? Or are we OK
> > with the console just adding the full implementation JARs for
> > everything to its class path?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like this;
> >>
> >> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
> >> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided ClassLoader
> >> for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
> >> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
> >> igs
> >> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
> >>
> >> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from the
> >> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies in the
> >> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
> >>
> >> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please review
> >> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
> >>
> >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
> >>
> >> And apply it if it makes sense?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> -bd-
> >>
>
>
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for the response.
As to the question; IMO the 'right' thing to do is separate out the
interfaces. But practically speaking is that reasonable? Seems like
that is a huge task for not much gain (unless I'm missing something
from a future expected use discussion that I missed).
Now making sure I understood what you said the cause of the error
message is. Since the jetty-deployer is 'provided' scope it is not
added explicitly to the class loader for the console. The jetty-
deloyer has the interface and impl for JettyWebAppContext. Since the
jar that this interface is in is not explicitly added to the
console's class path (because of 'provided' if I understand
correctly) it barfs.
However, if we were to separate the interfaces of 'jetty-deployer'
from the implementation classes we could put an explicit reference
into the console to the interfaces and leave the implementation as
'provided'.
Please fix my lack of understanding :-)
Thanks again,
-bd-
On Sep 4, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> It's actually the proxy manager that produces those messages. It
> means that the console asked for a proxy to some GBean, and some of
> the interfaces implemented by that GBean weren't available in the
> caller's (the console's) class loader.
>
> It would be nice to have a larger discussion about how to handle this.
> For example, do we package all management interfaces in separate JARs
> from the core libraries (Jetty, Tomcat, ActiveMQ, etc.) so that the
> console can add only the interfaces to its class loader? Or are we OK
> with the console just adding the full implementation JARs for
> everything to its class path?
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like this;
>>
>> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
>> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided ClassLoader
>> for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
>> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
>> igs
>> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
>>
>> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from the
>> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies in the
>> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
>>
>> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please review
>> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
>>
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
>>
>> And apply it if it makes sense?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -bd-
>>
Re: console & deployer dependencies
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
It's actually the proxy manager that produces those messages. It
means that the console asked for a proxy to some GBean, and some of
the interfaces implemented by that GBean weren't available in the
caller's (the console's) class loader.
It would be nice to have a larger discussion about how to handle this.
For example, do we package all management interfaces in separate JARs
from the core libraries (Jetty, Tomcat, ActiveMQ, etc.) so that the
console can add only the interfaces to its class loader? Or are we OK
with the console just adding the full implementation JARs for
everything to its class path?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like this;
>
> 08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
> org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided ClassLoader
> for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
> J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.configs
> /welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
>
> To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from the
> <artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies in the
> webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
>
> Could someone who knows more about the console than me please review
> the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
>
> And apply it if it makes sense?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -bd-
>