You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com> on 2003/08/13 17:57:39 UTC
ALL INTERESTED IN J2EE DEPLOYMENT/VERFICATION PLEASE READ
Hello,
Sorry to shout, but Iwant to get a better handle on our plans,
responsibilities, requirements etc. I stepped out for a few hours to work and
things were definitely different when I came back.
The way I see it there are two aspects to this that have been discussed up to
this point:
The full blown DeploymentManager (JSR 88)
The VerficationEngine (a module that will be used to validate a
J2eeApplicationObject or DeployableObject PRIOR to actual deployment).
Can I get a show of hands of who is expressedly interested in working on Task
1, and a show of hands who is primarily interested in working on Task2?
I had always assumed that we would share objects between the two modules, am I
correct in thinking this?
Weston
Re: All Interested In J2EE Deployment/Verification Please Read
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
Ok, then we were talking about the same thing; just terms I suppose.
Thanks.
Weston
On Wednesday 13 August 2003 11:39 pm, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Weston M. Price wrote:
> > My thought was that there are going to be some basic services:
> >
> > Reading a deployable archive.
> > Manipulating a deployable archive (verifiying and iterating over
> > elements etc)
> > Reporting on failures, errors, warnings etc.
> >
> > that should be common to both the DeploymentManager and the Verifier. We
> > are all operating on either an EAR (J2eeApplicationObject) or a WAR, RAR,
> > JAR (DeployableObject), my thought was that we would share the same
> > notion of how these objects are represented and implemented, or at least
> > share code in certain regards. What sense would it make for the
> > DeploymentManager team to write code to read an EAR, extract the relevant
> > parts and manipulate the archive and then have the Verification team do
> > exactly the same thing? Is there something that I am missing?
>
> Well, java.util.jar.* provides most of what you need to read the
> actual xAR files... between that and the ClassLoader, you can access
> and/or iterate classes pretty easily. If we need to explode an EAR into a
> temp dir, that could be common, but it's still a pretty tiny amount of
> code.
>
> If you're talking about walking through the actual DD items
> (beans, resources, roles, etc.), that's what I meant by "metadata". I
> think we do want a consistent set of objects to represent the J2EE and
> Geronimo metadata. However, I think it will get populated in different
> ways. If reading a JAR off disk, and that JAR has a couple XML files,
> then something will construct metadata objects from XML. In the JSR-88
> case, the DConfigBeans can write to the same metadata objects... And the
> J2EE standard metadata can either be stripped from the DDBeans or read
> from the DDs in the xAR.
>
> Anyway, I think we want a general procedure for error handling
> larger than the scope of the deployer and verifier. Potentially something
> with I18N and so on.
>
> Aaron
Re: All Interested In J2EE Deployment/Verification Please Read
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Weston M. Price wrote:
> My thought was that there are going to be some basic services:
>
> Reading a deployable archive.
> Manipulating a deployable archive (verifiying and iterating over elements
> etc)
> Reporting on failures, errors, warnings etc.
>
> that should be common to both the DeploymentManager and the Verifier. We are
> all operating on either an EAR (J2eeApplicationObject) or a WAR, RAR, JAR
> (DeployableObject), my thought was that we would share the same notion of how
> these objects are represented and implemented, or at least share code in
> certain regards. What sense would it make for the DeploymentManager team to
> write code to read an EAR, extract the relevant parts and manipulate the
> archive and then have the Verification team do exactly the same thing? Is
> there something that I am missing?
Well, java.util.jar.* provides most of what you need to read the
actual xAR files... between that and the ClassLoader, you can access
and/or iterate classes pretty easily. If we need to explode an EAR into a
temp dir, that could be common, but it's still a pretty tiny amount of
code.
If you're talking about walking through the actual DD items
(beans, resources, roles, etc.), that's what I meant by "metadata". I
think we do want a consistent set of objects to represent the J2EE and
Geronimo metadata. However, I think it will get populated in different
ways. If reading a JAR off disk, and that JAR has a couple XML files,
then something will construct metadata objects from XML. In the JSR-88
case, the DConfigBeans can write to the same metadata objects... And the
J2EE standard metadata can either be stripped from the DDBeans or read
from the DDs in the xAR.
Anyway, I think we want a general procedure for error handling
larger than the scope of the deployer and verifier. Potentially something
with I18N and so on.
Aaron
Re: All Interested In J2EE Deployment/Verification Please Read
Posted by "Weston M. Price" <we...@yahoo.com>.
My thought was that there are going to be some basic services:
Reading a deployable archive.
Manipulating a deployable archive (verifiying and iterating over elements
etc)
Reporting on failures, errors, warnings etc.
that should be common to both the DeploymentManager and the Verifier. We are
all operating on either an EAR (J2eeApplicationObject) or a WAR, RAR, JAR
(DeployableObject), my thought was that we would share the same notion of how
these objects are represented and implemented, or at least share code in
certain regards. What sense would it make for the DeploymentManager team to
write code to read an EAR, extract the relevant parts and manipulate the
archive and then have the Verification team do exactly the same thing? Is
there something that I am missing?
Regards,
Weston
On Wednesday 13 August 2003 10:35 pm, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Again, my thought is that the verifier and deployer should not
> directly share each other's objects. Among other things, the JSR-88
> DeploymentManager will not have a representation of the standard J2EE
> deployment descriptors, though ultimately whatever does the actual
> deploying needs to. I don't think it would make sense to mix who owns
> what in terms of the metadata.
>
> I think it would be better to have a lightweight metadata tree
> that represents the J2EE and Geronimo-specific metadata, and have whatever
> configuration mechanisms there are deal with that. So both JSR-88 and
> verifier would refer to that metadata model, but they won't directly be
> sharing each other's internals otherwise.
>
> Aaron
>
> P.S. Please don't shout. I don't think people have been having trouble
> discussing plans in the absence of volume.
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Weston M. Price wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Sorry to shout, but Iwant to get a better handle on our plans,
> > responsibilities, requirements etc. I stepped out for a few hours to work
> > and things were definitely different when I came back.
> >
> > The way I see it there are two aspects to this that have been discussed
> > up to this point:
> >
> > The full blown DeploymentManager (JSR 88)
> > The VerficationEngine (a module that will be used to validate a
> > J2eeApplicationObject or DeployableObject PRIOR to actual deployment).
> >
> > Can I get a show of hands of who is expressedly interested in working on
> > Task 1, and a show of hands who is primarily interested in working on
> > Task2?
> >
> > I had always assumed that we would share objects between the two modules,
> > am I correct in thinking this?
Re: All Interested In J2EE Deployment/Verification Please Read
Posted by Labeeb Syed <an...@yahoo.com>.
I believe you can add this information to the Wiki
page
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheJ2EE/Volunteers-_Topics
Also if possible update the page with the part you
intend to work on.
--- Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> Again, my thought is that the verifier and deployer
> should not
> directly share each other's objects. Among other
> things, the JSR-88
> DeploymentManager will not have a representation of
> the standard J2EE
> deployment descriptors, though ultimately whatever
> does the actual
> deploying needs to. I don't think it would make
> sense to mix who owns
> what in terms of the metadata.
>
> I think it would be better to have a lightweight
> metadata tree
> that represents the J2EE and Geronimo-specific
> metadata, and have whatever
> configuration mechanisms there are deal with that.
> So both JSR-88 and
> verifier would refer to that metadata model, but
> they won't directly be
> sharing each other's internals otherwise.
>
> Aaron
>
> P.S. Please don't shout. I don't think people have
> been having trouble
> discussing plans in the absence of volume.
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Weston M. Price wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Sorry to shout, but Iwant to get a better handle
> on our plans,
> > responsibilities, requirements etc. I stepped out
> for a few hours to work and
> > things were definitely different when I came back.
>
> >
> > The way I see it there are two aspects to this
> that have been discussed up to
> > this point:
> >
> > The full blown DeploymentManager (JSR 88)
> > The VerficationEngine (a module that will be used
> to validate a
> > J2eeApplicationObject or DeployableObject PRIOR to
> actual deployment).
> >
> > Can I get a show of hands of who is expressedly
> interested in working on Task
> > 1, and a show of hands who is primarily interested
> in working on Task2?
> >
> > I had always assumed that we would share objects
> between the two modules, am I
> > correct in thinking this?
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: All Interested In J2EE Deployment/Verification Please Read
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Again, my thought is that the verifier and deployer should not
directly share each other's objects. Among other things, the JSR-88
DeploymentManager will not have a representation of the standard J2EE
deployment descriptors, though ultimately whatever does the actual
deploying needs to. I don't think it would make sense to mix who owns
what in terms of the metadata.
I think it would be better to have a lightweight metadata tree
that represents the J2EE and Geronimo-specific metadata, and have whatever
configuration mechanisms there are deal with that. So both JSR-88 and
verifier would refer to that metadata model, but they won't directly be
sharing each other's internals otherwise.
Aaron
P.S. Please don't shout. I don't think people have been having trouble
discussing plans in the absence of volume.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Weston M. Price wrote:
> Hello,
> Sorry to shout, but Iwant to get a better handle on our plans,
> responsibilities, requirements etc. I stepped out for a few hours to work and
> things were definitely different when I came back.
>
> The way I see it there are two aspects to this that have been discussed up to
> this point:
>
> The full blown DeploymentManager (JSR 88)
> The VerficationEngine (a module that will be used to validate a
> J2eeApplicationObject or DeployableObject PRIOR to actual deployment).
>
> Can I get a show of hands of who is expressedly interested in working on Task
> 1, and a show of hands who is primarily interested in working on Task2?
>
> I had always assumed that we would share objects between the two modules, am I
> correct in thinking this?