I was thinking. After developing this module, we
will all be very
versed in the J2EE Deployment Specs. Our team could
have 3 phases:
1) research and development of Verification Module
2) development of Deployment module
3) Development of Deployment Manager
Any thoughts?
~Jonathan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Weston on the modules separation:
I`m realy focused on module three. So I would like
to work more closely on
that. Wish to help on others modules too, but I`m
already working on the
verifier... I will have something more tangeable
really soon, assuming that the
architecture that I described earlier is ok. Which
is best to show the
interfaces: commented source code or a gif with the
class diagram, or both?
I`m not familiar with apache`s development process,
but I`m assuming that I
will submit the interfaces for approval, do the
changes that shows necessary
and then proceed to implement something to prove
that works. Is that correct?
Thanks
Denes
Citando "Weston M. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position
on this? I am not sure how
the structure is going to work. Basically I am
thinking in these terms:
Module One: common
Source that is applicable to both the deployment
module and the
verification
service (JVXS) Included here would be all
appropriate interfaces to be
compliant with J2EE specifications. The
DeploymentManager would be included
in this module as well.
Module Two:
Deployment
Module Three:
Verification
I think we can start another module under
CVS.....I don't have committing
rights on Geronimo....
I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way
around all this stuff. If
we
can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space
for code, docs, scripts,
models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat
slow (sigh...satellite no
less....never live in the woods dudes)....
Weston
On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty
wrote:
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
