Proposal: Improve runtime integration with tooling (All non-eclipse users please read)

[Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>]

I've started a development roadmap on the Wiki for the eclipse-plugin.

http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC11/Geronimo+Eclipse 
+Plugin+-+Development+Roadmap

In the last section, is a section entitled "Geronimo Runtime  
Requirements".  The problem mentioned in the proposal is already  
being seen by users with a large project set, and I feel is an  
important problem that needs to be solved so that we can improve our  
development experience for our users.

So I ask If everyone could take a moment and take a look at the  
feature request in this section and provide feedback, concerns, and  
or possible solutions, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

-sachin

Re: Proposal: Improve runtime integration with tooling (All non-eclipse users please read)

[Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>]

Looks good to me Sachin (at least for those items that I understand). 
The Geronimo runtime requirement to support deployment of modules that 
don't comply with the specification (because of the IDE structure) 
sounds like it will be challenging.

Just a few comments/questions:
- Is this a roadmap for multiple releases or what you think is needed in 
the next release?  If it's a roadmap for multiple release it would be 
helpful if these were indicated (or perhaps just a simple breakdown of 
r1.2 and anything else as "future").
- Can we include an item to support a little-G assemblies via the plugin 
in the future?
- Rather than one catch-all item to support the deployment plan editors, 
these should probably be listed individually.  I suspect they will most 
likely be implemented individually.   Also, are you thinking of these as 
wizard-like capabilities really just editors?
- What are your thoughts about providing a mechanism to query available 
elements that are already deployed in the server for the purpose of 
offering the users lists of potential dependencies when building the 
plans.  Building the plans using wizards were facilitate such features 
but this probably isn't feasible with just editor support.
- I recall that Paul had mentioned the desire to include the ability to 
generate a plugin from the tooling.  Should this be added to the list?


Joe

Sachin Patel wrote:
> I've started a development roadmap on the Wiki for the eclipse-plugin.
> 
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC11/Geronimo+Eclipse+Plugin+-+Development+Roadmap
> 
> In the last section, is a section entitled "Geronimo Runtime 
> Requirements".  The problem mentioned in the proposal is already being 
> seen by users with a large project set, and I feel is an important 
> problem that needs to be solved so that we can improve our development 
> experience for our users.
> 
> So I ask If everyone could take a moment and take a look at the feature 
> request in this section and provide feedback, concerns, and or possible 
> solutions, it would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> -sachin
> 
> 

-- 
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn at earthlink.net

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot 
lose."   -- Jim Elliot

Re: Proposal: Improve runtime integration with tooling (All non-eclipse users please read)

[Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>]

Currently the configstore.resolve method is not sufficient to allow  
projects to be run directly from an IDE.  By the time this method is  
called, only the resources found by building up the config are passed  
into this method to be resolved.  Some pluggable method resolving  
needs to also take place when the configuration is being built up in  
each of the builders.

- EARConfigBuilder cannot assume that each of its modules are located  
directly inside the root location of the ear so it can support a  
flattened projects, this goes for utility modules as well.

- When searching for libraries such as inside web-inf/lib, since in  
an IDE these lib entries could be virtual with the actual library  
residing as another project or an external jar in the filesystem,  
currently these cannot be found since on the filesystem this folder  
is empty.  This goes for jar entries in a manifest, a relative  
location cannot be assumed.

- A j2ee project in an IDE usually has 2 "binary" locations, a  
classes folder, and another for the module root. (metadata).  The  
configstore.resolve method handles this, but each of the builders  
when processing a module cannot be aware of just one root location of  
the module, because I think there are builders that need to know both  
where the classes are for a module as well as the metadata.  So it  
would be good to have for for any module whether its a utility module  
or a j2ee module the notion of a "resources location" and a  
"binaries" location".

I think this covers 90% of the cases and would be a good start.  I  
think if we come up with some common interface that all builders  
would use to locate resources, it would be easy to plug in different  
resolvers, that could be set by the deployment manager for each  
deploy??? Thoughts?

-sachin


On Jul 12, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> Can you boil this down to a few bullets of what changes you need to  
> make (or be made for you)?
>
> -dain
>
> On Jul 12, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>
>> I've started a development roadmap on the Wiki for the eclipse- 
>> plugin.
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC11/Geronimo 
>> +Eclipse+Plugin+-+Development+Roadmap
>>
>> In the last section, is a section entitled "Geronimo Runtime  
>> Requirements".  The problem mentioned in the proposal is already  
>> being seen by users with a large project set, and I feel is an  
>> important problem that needs to be solved so that we can improve  
>> our development experience for our users.
>>
>> So I ask If everyone could take a moment and take a look at the  
>> feature request in this section and provide feedback, concerns,  
>> and or possible solutions, it would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> -sachin
>>
>>
>


-sachin

Re: Proposal: Improve runtime integration with tooling (All non-eclipse users please read)

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

Can you boil this down to a few bullets of what changes you need to  
make (or be made for you)?

-dain

On Jul 12, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:

> I've started a development roadmap on the Wiki for the eclipse-plugin.
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC11/Geronimo 
> +Eclipse+Plugin+-+Development+Roadmap
>
> In the last section, is a section entitled "Geronimo Runtime  
> Requirements".  The problem mentioned in the proposal is already  
> being seen by users with a large project set, and I feel is an  
> important problem that needs to be solved so that we can improve  
> our development experience for our users.
>
> So I ask If everyone could take a moment and take a look at the  
> feature request in this section and provide feedback, concerns, and  
> or possible solutions, it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -sachin
>
>