The idea is that server providers and extenders can mix and match delegates that perform specific bits of the publish and export process as they wish.
For example, assuming a complete Tomcat publish/export solution continues to ship as part of WTP, there might be two delegates for publish, one that copies WAR content to a directory based on the default WTP/JDT project metadata, and one that deploys that directory to Tomcat. For export there would also be two delegates, the same one that assembles a WAR in a directory, one that zips it up into a .war. The assembly and/or deploy delegate could then be replaced in a custom solution, or its capabilities extended (if this type of virtual war is standard), to avoid copying. -Ted -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Igor Fedorenko Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:59 AM To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] RE: Server API change proposal Will this work for servers that are able to deploy EAR/WAR by reference to workspace, i.e. actual EAR/WAR structure is not assembled during publish? Ted Bashor wrote: > One thing I would add is that the Publish process and the Archive Export > process should be very, very similar from an extension/api point of view. > > > > For both processes, I'd suggest that the WTP framework should be based > on running an ordered list of delegates registered to module/facet id + > server/runtime id. WTP would include some default/reference delegate > implementations - e.g. ones that assemble an EAR, WAR, or EJB in a > directory, ones that deploy to Tomcat, etc. > > > > -Ted > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Thomas Yip > *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2006 7:01 PM > *To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. > *Cc:* Ted Bashor; Konstantin Komissarchik; Gorkem Ercan; Sachin Patel; > Timothy Deboer > *Subject:* Server API change proposal > > > > > */Introduction/* > > This proposal briefs the limitation we see with current server publish > API, and it suggests a solution. We had a short discussion during a > conference call on Mar 13^th , 2006. (mainly around the > ServerBehaviourDelegate). The problem is also related to > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=123676 > > > > > */Current API/* > > We learned the original design was driven by a need of a very simply > publish mechanism. > > 1. an adopter should able to implement a simply delegate and do the > publish work. > 2. publish tasks was intent to be simple task. > 3. most methods can be overridden. > > > > > */BEA use-cases/* > > We found the current API is not ideal for BEA needs. > > > > We delay much of publish process until user do an explicit publish > action (menu item publish, or Run on Server). > > > > 1. We generates *.java file based on annotation of Java file in > publish time. We trigger project rebuild during process. > 2. We insert information into application descriptors (web.xml, > application.xml) based on files on the project. > 3. Generated artifacts can cause changes to the EAR or other modules > in the same application. > 4. Publish application by application. > 5. Publish failure should be isolated between modules. > > > > For us, the publish process is better described as a 3 steps process: > Assembly (artifact generation), Packaging (we package virtually), and > Distribution (calls JSR-88 to distribute the application to the server). > > > */Limitation/* > > The current SPI was driven by the need of simple publishing. The publish > process iterates module by a flattend module list (not application by > application.) > > > > Because that most methods can be overridden, we can achieve our goal > reasonably well. However, it incurs maintenance risk, because are not > really implementing the delegate's SPI. For example, > > 1. if a fix or an enhancement is made to PublishOperation, our server > adapter lag behind, and enhancement will not be supported. > 2. We short circuit a few methods, such as publishModules() (which is > a violate the interface). If any of the methods is called by new > code that we haven't overridden, it causes unexpected behaviour. > > > > Because of the different design goal, we don't implement the full spec > of ServerBehaviourDelegate. While such changes might not be likely, an > adopter should not be required to implement their delegate in a way to > violate the SPI contract. > > > */Solution/* > > > *Required changes* > > We can eliminate the problem by the following changes: > > > > 1. Introduce another delegate. Let's call it > BaseServerBehaviourDelegate for now. The current > ServerBehaviourDelegate should make extended of > BaseServerBehaviourDelegate. Most generic methods can be push up. > (such as state settings, module controls, resource delta > maintaince. But, it leaves out > 1. code related to published module list, and the kind. > PublishOperation, and > 2. all the publish methods. Introduce an adapter interface to > indicate PublishOperation is supported. > > > > The changes will maintain compatibility for all current adopter, and the > original design goal. It enables adopter with different needs to have > full control of the publish process. > > > > 2. > 1. Either, makes publish operation optional. Push down > PublsihOperation related code to the original > ServerBehaviour Delegate. > 2. Or, factors out PublishOperation into utility class or method. > 3. Or, made PublishOperation not depends on the flatten module > path (IModule[] representing the sub module and its parents). > 3. Introducing another extension point for UI to replace the > hard-coded publishTask page fragment. Move UI for publishOperation > as an extension. > > > > A brief study of the code indicated that we should able to implement it > in a way that it doesn't affect existing adopter. > > > > > */Optional changes/* > > A few optional changes can be introduced to ease the work of an adopter. > > > > 1. Publishing application-by-application is common to many servers. > We might want to introduce another BehaviourDelegate. > 2. Generic server is already use application-by-application approach. > We should look into merging the requirements. > 3. Going further, we can also introduce the 3 steps publish process > for adopter with complicated publish use-case. > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > Thomas Yip > > Senior Software Engineer > > BEA Systems > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> YIM: thomasleaf > Phone: > (206) 926-2906 Blog: http://theBigGrid.com/ _______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev _______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. _______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
