Proposal for more uniform gbean naming, similar to jsr-77 names.

[David Jencks <dj...@apache.org>]

Currently there is a more or less uniform naming scheme for j2ee  
components specified by jsr-77, whereas the naming of other gbeans is  
totally random and unpredictable, depending on the whims of the  
developer as they strive for literary greatness... well, at least they  
are all over the map.

Some aspects of uniformity from the jsr-77 scheme could easily be  
applied to regular gbeans:

domain name and server name are specified in the EARConfigBuilder.   
Similarly, they could be specified in the ServiceConfigBuilder for  
uniformity across all gbeans.

Application name and/or module name are specified by the configId or  
explicit application-name element, or by the relative location of a  
module within an ear.

Similarly, we could supply a module name for gbeans from the configId  
or an explicit module-name attribute.

j2eeType is perhaps not appropriate for non-j2ee component gbeans.   
However some standard type name would be desirable, perhaps  
serviceType.

As with j2ee components, a name property is needed.


So, a resulting gbean name might look like:

geronimo.server: 
J2EEServer=geronimo,ServiceModule=foo,serviceType=3ProngedChuckActuator, 
name=default


Of these, the domain and J2EEServer would be set in the  
ServiceConfigBuilder,

ServiceModule set by

<service configId="a/b/c" parentId="base" module-name="foo">

and the gbean itself would only need

<gbean type="3ProngedChuckActuator" name="default"  
class="com.bar.foo.Illusion">

or

<gbean properties="ServiceType=3ProngedChuckActuator,name=default"  
class="com.bar.foo.Illusion">

or the first with optional additional properties.

Thoughts? Flames?

many thanks,
david jencks

Re: Proposal for more uniform gbean naming, similar to jsr-77 names.

[Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and yesterday I came up  
with an idea...

On Oct 28, 2004, at 9:28 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Oct 27, 2004, at 10:48 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> <gbean type="3ProngedChuckActuator" name="default"  
>> class="com.bar.foo.Illusion">
>
> +1  maybe it should be serviceType to match the objectName
>
>> <gbean properties="ServiceType=3ProngedChuckActuator,name=default"  
>> class="com.bar.foo.Illusion">
>
> This brings up the issue where I want to have a name that is a logical  
> child of a GBean.  For example:
>
> <gbean serviceType="Component" name="funk" class="x.y.z">
> geronimo.server: 
> J2EEServer=geronimo,ServiceModule=foo,serviceType=Component,name=funk
>
> <gbean serviceType="ComponentPool" Component="funk" name="fpool"  
> class="a.b.c">
> geronimo.server: 
> J2EEServer=geronimo,ServiceModule=foo,Component=funk,serviceType=Pool,n 
> ame=fpool
>
> Maybe we can construct the object name from the attributes, except for  
> the class one?

Yesterday, it occurred to me that we could construct object names, just  
like 77 does.  This means that each component has a logical parent.   
For example:

foo:j2eeType=J2EEApplication,name=MyApp,J2EEServer=MyServer

foo: 
j2eeType=EJBModule,name=MyEJBModule,J2EEApplication=MyApp,J2EEServer=MyS 
erver

foo: 
j2eeType=EntityBean,name=MyBean,EJBModule=MyEJBModule,J2EEApplication=My 
App,J2EEServer=MyServer

To achieve this style of name building we, just need to add a  
parentType and parentName attributes.  For the above names we would  
have the following xml:

<gbean type="J2EEApplication" name="MyApp" class="...">

<gbean type="EJBModule" name="MyEJBModule" parentType="J2EEApplication"  
parentName="MyApp" class="...">

<gbean type="EntityBean" name="MyBean" parentType ="EJBModule"  
parentName ="MyEJBModule" class="...">

In most cases, we you would not have the parentType and parentName, as  
the default parent would be module in which the gbean xml snippet is  
contained.

The only weird thing about this proposal, is it would require the  
parent be *visible* from the deployment code.  This would mean it would  
have to be in the same deployment unit, or possible in a parent  
configuration.  To reduce this problem, I propose that we allow a gbean  
to explicitly set its exact ObjectName (GBeanName).

-dain

Re: Proposal for more uniform gbean naming, similar to jsr-77 names.

[Dain Sundstrom <ds...@gluecode.com>]

+1 Good idea.

On Oct 27, 2004, at 10:48 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> So, a resulting gbean name might look like:
>
> geronimo.server: 
> J2EEServer=geronimo,ServiceModule=foo,serviceType=3ProngedChuckActuator 
> ,name=default

> <service configId="a/b/c" parentId="base" module-name="foo">

I like this.  Would the module-name default to configId?

> <gbean type="3ProngedChuckActuator" name="default"  
> class="com.bar.foo.Illusion">

+1  maybe it should be serviceType to match the objectName

> <gbean properties="ServiceType=3ProngedChuckActuator,name=default"  
> class="com.bar.foo.Illusion">

This brings up the issue where I want to have a name that is a logical  
child of a GBean.  For example:

<gbean serviceType="Component" name="funk" class="x.y.z">
geronimo.server: 
J2EEServer=geronimo,ServiceModule=foo,serviceType=Component,name=funk

<gbean serviceType="ComponentPool" Component="funk" name="fpool"  
class="a.b.c">
geronimo.server: 
J2EEServer=geronimo,ServiceModule=foo,Component=funk,serviceType=Pool,na 
me=fpool

Maybe we can construct the object name from the attributes, except for  
the class one?

Also, do we want components to be able override the name?

-dain