Here is the disconnect I still have with regard to RARs. For RARs we have to configure a ConnectionFactoryLoader mbean instance for a particular RAR. For every other J2EE component we have an mbean that handles many deployments and obtains the deployment unit specific properties from standard + JBoss specific deployment descriptors. With the current RAR mechanism I cannot deploy a RAR from a remote URL since the RAR is not a self describing deployment unit(2.4, I don't know about 3.0). Why?
The only point to not including a JBoss specific deployment descriptor in the RAR is that this allows easier configuration. This is simply a tools/packaing issue. You can use an unarchived RAR and achieve the same effect by simply editing the jboss-ra.xml file within the RAR directory. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Scott Stark Chief Technology Officer JBoss Group, LLC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ JDBC PersistenceManager > I guess I have no particular problem having the ability to put a > jboss-service.xml file in a rar, as long as we keep the ability to > configure ConnectionFactoryLoader mbeans in any *-service.xml file. > > The case with external configuration is crucial for jdbc databases and the > required DefaultDS, and could be pretty useful if someone uses the same rar > in many applications. > > On 2001.11.03 03:46:09 -0500 Scott M Stark wrote: > > > > What is the point of the ConnectionFactoryLoader as an entity > > that is coupled to the RARDeployer? > > None coupled to the RARDeployer, but coupled to the rar itself, it gives > you the ability to easily add/remove more connection factories at any time > after the rar is deployed, without duplicating the rar classes or > disturbing allready functioning ConnectionFactories. > I don't see the point of having > > trivial deployement of the RAR classes independent of the resource > > adapator configuration. For a standalone resource adaptor it is not > > so combersome to create a RAR and then configure an mbean, but > > for a RAR deployed as part of an ear this does not make sense to me. > > I think it would be more straightforward to configure the RAR deployment > > using a jboss-ra.xml descriptor as part of the RAR just as any other > > deployment unit is handled. > > Did someone add the "rar in ear" already? In this case, you can configure > the CFL in a jboss-service.xml in the ear. > > BTW, what do you think of putting rar's deployed in ears on the application > classloader rather than the system classloader? Thus allowing several apps > to have incompatible versions of the same rar. > > Also btw, the change in 2.4 to put the rar's into the mlet classloader made > them non-redeployable I believe. However this is better than inaccessible. > > david jencks > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:08 PM > > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ JDBC PersistenceManager > > > > > > > Well, don't confuse the rar and the connectionfactory. > > > > > > What I have on my machine, using the mbean references, is like this: > > > > > > a rar gets a RARDeployment mbean, which among other things lets you see > > the > > > default properties and classes easily, but mostly allows you to depend > > on > > > it. > > > > > > The ConnectionFactoryLoader has mbean references (dependencies) to the > > > required RAR(Deployment) and the ConnectionManager(Factory) it uses. > > So, > > it > > > will deploy as soon as the exact things it needs are present. No need > > for > > > the artificial reference to RARDeployer. > > > > > > Do you think we should follow weblogic's lead and allow and encourage > > > including a jboss-service.xml in a rar to allow configuring > > > ConnectionFactory(Loaders) within the rar? It's certainly easy enough, > > but > > > I have my doubts about the wisdom. I definitely want to preserve the > > > ability to have ConnectionFactoryLoader configurations outside the rar. > > > > > > david jencks > > > > > > On 2001.11.02 20:45:09 -0500 Scott M Stark wrote: > > > > I'm not particularly keen on how we couple the deployment properties > > of > > a > > > > RAR to an MBean configuration AND a JMX notification. This makes the > > > > configuration for a RAR inconsistent with any other J2EE component > > > > deployment where this information is specified via a JBoss specific > > > > descriptor > > > > to build a self contained deployment unit. The configuration is also > > more > > > > convoluted as you have to specifiy the name of the RAR deployer MBean > > > > so that notifications are received. This really makes no sense to > > someone > > > > who just happens to have a RAR to deploy and hasn't been dragged > > through > > > > the JMX bus school of religion. > > > > > > > > I definitely want to change this for 3.0 and so I'll pickup what you > > have > > > > and > > > > finish the deployment layer for 3.0 in a couple of weeks when I > > finish > > > > the > > > > book. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if I want to introduce such a change for the handling of > > > > RARs > > > > into the 2.4 branch. > > > > > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Scott Stark > > > > Chief Technology Officer > > > > JBoss Group, LLC > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Jboss-development mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
