Are you saying to use CASTOR to read the xmls files? Not familiar with CASTOR, but you think that is better than JAXB (it`s only a question, I *really* don`t stand uf for JAXB...)?
Denes Citando "Weston M. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Castor. > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on > that... > > > > About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment > verifier > > will have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from > > somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of external entities. > This > > way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an > > ant task for it, and so on. > > > > Some thoughs about the verifier: > > > > 1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each > > rule implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in > > the same class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO > this > > is the best that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed > from > > specs will be promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of > > Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about > > what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules, > > session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be related to more than > one > > domain. This will speed up the process, as the verifies asks only the > rules > > related to the domain that it`s verifying at moment; > > > > 2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like > > ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what > > section was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for > sure > > ;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use > > the validator can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want; > IMO > > this is better than exceptions because we can generate several violations > > at once and is better that string messages because gives more > flexibility. > > > > 3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml > > files to do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be > > interesting but have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point > > is that the server will have to read these file as well to startup the > > application. So, the reader should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone > > knows if jakarta already have this implemented? > > > > 4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees > > in using JAXB? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Denes > > > > Citando Jonathan Duty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Great. Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started. Any > > > ideas for planning? > > > > > > ~Jonathan > > > > > > Weston M. Price wrote: > > > >Right on dude.... > > > > > > > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the > > > >controller and the two...well at this point we will call them > > > > > > services....The > > > > > > >"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the > > > > > > personal > > > > > > >mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least > in > > > >terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment > service. > > > > > > This > > > > > > >would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate > a > > > >common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's > own > > > >module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces. > > > > > > > >Weston > > > > > > > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote: > > > >>Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what > you > > > >>were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision? > > > >>The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also. > > > >>~Jonathan > > > >> > > > >>Weston M. Price wrote: > > > >>>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris > > > >>> alluded > > > > > > to > > > > > > >>>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for > > > >>> coordinating the interaction between the verification engine and > the > > > >>> deployment engine....sort of a controller, that way the two can be > > > >>> loosely coupled relying on an external agent to provide an higher > > > >>> level of service, in this case the complete deployment of a J2EE > > > >>> archive. > > > >>> > > > >>>Weston > > > >>> > > > >>>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote: > > > >>>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface > > > >>>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to > > > >>>>implement the SPI for the deployer. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring > > > >>>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs > > > >>>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other > > > >>>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)? > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come > > > >>>>up with a list potential technical problems we could > > > >>>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Labeeb Syed > > > >>>> > > > >>>>--- Chris Opacki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > >>>> > > > >>>>=== message truncated === > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>__________________________________ > > > >>>>Do you Yahoo!? > > > >>>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > > >>>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > -- Existem 10 tipos de pessoas: as que entendem bin�rio e as que n�o. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
