But is it an actual object model or just an API? Sorry for my ignorance on this, but I haven't had a chance to really get into the specs.
Weston On Monday 11 August 2003 03:55 pm, Chris Opacki wrote: > That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the > object model that has been defined in the deployment > spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are also > some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that > both modules might use. > > --- "Weston M. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But I do agree that the two teams must work closely > > together....Chris made an > > excellent point in indetifying that there are > > certain basic facilities that > > we can use together....I think if we can agree on a > > common object model for > > archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could > > probably develop our own > > streams, attributes, behavior..... > > > > Weston > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki > > > > wrote: > > > Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the > > > > deployer > > > > > shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has > > > run...its a good idea that the deployableobject > > > > are > > > > > build from within a controller that sends them to > > > > the > > > > > verifier for verification and then to the > > > > deployer. > > > > > Something along that lines at a high level. we can > > > reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI. > > > > > > --- Jonathan Duty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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] > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
