In 2.0, it looks like the connector-deployer gbeans were configured
differently between minimal and full assemblies:
minimal's config.xml:
<module name="org.apache.geronimo.configs/connector-deployer/${version}/car"/>
javaee's config.xml:
<module
name="org.apache.geronimo.configs/connector-deployer/${version}/car">
<gbean name="ResourceRefBuilder">
<attribute
name="eeNamespaces">http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee,http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee</attribute>
<attribute name="defaultEnvironment">
<environment
xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/deployment-1.2";>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
<artifactId>j2ee-corba-yoko</artifactId>
<type>car</type>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</environment>
</attribute>
</gbean>
......
In trunk the connector-deployer/car gets configured in the same way
(with the yoko dependency) for both assemblies.
Jarek
On Jan 28, 2008 5:07 PM, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I discovered last Friday that deployment is broken on the Minimal
> Assemblies. (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3787)
>
> Attempting to deploy a simple web app that contains just a jsp (with or
> without a deployment plan) we hit an error that there is a missing
> dependency:
>
> Missing dependency:
> org.apache.geronimo.configs/j2ee-corba-yoko//car
>
>
> Does this mean that we have a DefaultEnvironment setting or something
> similar someplace that is attempting to add j2ee-corba-yoko as a
> dependency to every web app being deployed?
>
> Aside from the specs, I don't believe that we should include anything
> from yoko in the minimal assemblies.
>
> Looking at the config.xml for the server it appears this is getting
> included via the connector-deployer config and its ResourceRefBuilder
> GBean's EnvironmentBuilder. Looking at the connector-deployer pom it
> appears this defaultEnvironment has been for a long time, so I don't
> know why it should start to cause a problem now. The only relatively
> recent change I see http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=603109&view=rev .
> Is it possible this had an impact on the minimal deployments such that
> they now require a require this car to be available whereas it was
> optional before? Any pointers?
>
> Joe
>
