On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 09:40 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
The enterprise.deploy package is currently the JSR-88 area. We
used enterprise.deploy to distinguish from "deployment", which seems to be
server component deployment instead of application deployment.
I disagree. We will only have one deployment system, and it will support 88. If what we have doesn't work with 88, we need to change it.
As for "provider", it's to distinguish it from the tool side,
which will be used for management consoles, etc. and from the objects
(generated by Castor into "common" in the pending patch) that represent
that actual J2EE component metadata (the object representation of the DDs,
in other words) and from the stuff (currently not implemented) that will
actually do the work of deployment on the server side.
I agree. We should have org.apache.geronimo.provider. This all needs to work like a seamless unit, and not a bolt on. Having them in the same package is just the first step.
I think the provider stuff should remain separate from
"deployment" because its only a JSR-88 implementation -- it's the GUI
logic (and potentially widgets) that a tool will use. It's full of
JavaBeans (particularly if you look at the xxxBeanInfo classes in the
pending patch), and they all have to be packaged together and separately
from most everything else in order to be distributed to tools (the patch
also creates a JAR out of these classes, with a manifest full of bean
declarations and so on).
These are all fine to have in deployment. For the actual tools, like a deployment GUI, console or ant task those should go into a deployment tools module. Now come to think of it, I think this stuff should go in with the rest of our management tools. Every type of management tool I think of I also want a deployment tool. I'm thinking of web, GUI, console, and ant.
Finally, if you repackage everything without looking at my patch
first, I'll... I'll... I'll send it a fourth time! But if you are going
to repackage it, some of it probably ought to go in a different module,
not just a different package.
Agree. I'm not going to repackage it without figuring out what works best for all of us. I'll look at you patch tomorrow morning.
-dain
/************************* * Dain Sundstrom * Partner * Core Developers Network *************************/
