Plus, We could create hooks into this module for not only ant, but JEdit, Eclipse, whatever gui tool they create for Gerinomo and other IDE tools.
~Jonathan Jonathan Duty Software Developer - eWashtenaw -----Original Message----- From: Weston M. Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier The neat thing is that we can actually conceive of pluggable verification modules: WebSphere WebLogic JBoss Incorporating these particular appservers idiosyncracies and allowing for particular extensions....all this is down the road of course...but you see what I mean. Weston On Monday 11 August 2003 02:54 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote: > +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$ tool to have as a > developer. > > Plus, the deployment team could use it if they want to verify the > archive schema before they start deploying it. > > Count me in! > ~Jonathan > > > Jonathan Duty > Software Developer - eWashtenaw > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > I agree completely. I think what we are talking about are two modules > that are > close cousins. The verification manager is again, the "front-line" of > defense > for the deployment manager. I would assume the deployment manager would > deal > with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints, incorrect classfile > versions > etc. while the verfication manager will handle actual semantic > fallibities in > the deployment descriptors based upon the existing specifications. > > The reason I mentioned a seperate verification module was that I > would > developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine that given a deployment > > platform could validate their archive before ever trying to drop it in > the > chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to the fact that XML > descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they are "correct" at > compile > time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my opion would be to > provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the archive during > compile > time. > > Regards, > > Weston > > On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote: > > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this verifier, even as a > > separate module, be a subset of the deploy module? I mean we don't > > want > > > to deploy something that the J2EE server will not accept. > > > > Maybe these 2 groups should work close together. > > > > ~Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the > > verifier would be close friends. > > ;) > > > > --- Srihari S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > True > > > Our module is just going to check and declare > > > whether or not a given unit of > > > deployment > > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not. > > > > > > Nothing more..nothing less. > > > Building this unit will be our mission..right > > > weston?? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > > > > And even further, let's clarify the verification is > > > a completely different > > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on this > > > one at least in terms of > > > the way we are thinking about this module? > > > > > > Weston > > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote: > > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee > > > > > > 1.4 spec > > > > > > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud > > > > > > specify the correct > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > > > > > > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also > > > > provides a high level architecture describe the > > > > relations between deployable components and > > > > > > objects in > > > > > > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an > > > > > > interesting > > > > > > > read. > > > > > > > > --- Srihari S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > the rule engine concept > > > > > it will because of u:) > > > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the > > > > > > verifier as > > > > > > > > Input Process Output > > > > > > > > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK > > with > > > error > > > > > log > > > > > > > > WAR by parsing the DD > > > > > EAR and applying correctness > > > > > RAR rules > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a > > > > > standalone app and we must > > > > > design its internals in this spirit > > > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > will get into the > > > > > geronimo frwk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Weston M. Price > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE > > > > > > verifier > > > > > > > > engine/processor would be > > > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > be a standalone module > > > > > that would allow a developer to validate their > > > > > archive before ever even > > > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of > > > > > course, you wouldn't be able > > > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > tty when you go to > > > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one > > > > > drawback.... > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Weston > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. > > > > > > Price > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > me, poor choice of words > > > > > > > > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > "rules" as conditions > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > in terms of a full blown > > > > > > > > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat > > > > > > > > > > interesting). At the very core > > > > > > > > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > when applied to a > > > > > > > > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be > > > > > > met > > > > > > > > for the archive to be > > > > > > > > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a > > > > > > watchdog > > > > > > > > that prevents archives > > > > > > > > > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Weston > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when > > > > > > i > > > > > > > > started thinking abt this > > > > > > > > > > > > verifier.. > > > > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src > > > > > > rule > > > > > > > > engines for designing > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > verifier? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Weston M. Price > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM > > > > > > > To: Srihari S; > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few > > > > > > reasons: > > > > > > > What we are really talking about is a type > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > rules engine where > > > > > certain > > > > > > > > > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a > > > > > > > > > > successful "deployment". The most > > > > > > > > > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > make this module > > > > > > > > > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > know that specifications > > > > > > > > > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As > > > > > > > > > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
