On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 15:56 Europe/London, James Strachan wrote:
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 01:06 pm, Alex Blewitt wrote:You could set the bridge up so that Geronimo doesn't even have to care about what the types are (and/or generate delegation methods to their normal counterparts). Plus, it could then be extended to deal with other flavours, such as the WebSphere or Weblogic deployment descriptors at the same time.
Whoah. I know about bridges and the like. I'm asking *why* do we have to support any other deployment metadata other than Geronimo. e.g. why should the Geronimo project ever have to deal with non-Geronimo metadata. Lets figure out the use cases first before we dive off coding stuff we don't need.
Good thinking. What could this allow us to do, and would those extensions be useful?
For starters, having separate Geronimo beans over the standard would make it interoperate better with other containers and their deployment stuff. For example, if the deployment tool was integrated into an IDE, then it may be desirable to generate DDs for not only Geronimo, but also other app servers as well. A bridge could solve that.
IMHO it's a lot better to take an EAR that has been pre-configured for straight installation into a server than to have to do setup (where possible). As such, some EARs have deployment configuration/code in them already which allows them to be plugged straight in with no or minimal intervention.
But in terms of deploying directly into Geronimo, this may not matter.
So can anyone else think of other advantages/uses that this would give that others don't? If not, we may not need it.
Alex.
