Anyone? > I could unfortunately not make it to this call (vacation keeping me offline > at bad times). > > Will there be a resume of it somewhere? > > /max > > > >> Hi Naci, >> >> Phone details are listed below in this thread >> >> Thanks - Chuck >> >> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead >> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) >> >> >> >> From: >> "Naci Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." >> <[email protected]> >> Date: >> 07/15/2008 11:49 AM >> Subject: >> Re: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Wednesday 11am - 12pm EDT) >> >> >> >> Chuck, >> >> What are the coordinates of the meeting? >> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Chuck Bridgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> OK, >> >> Sorry for the late notice - We are trying to get most parties involved in >> the discussion, so I will move the meeting to 11am EDT Wednesday >> (Tomorrow) >> Tim - I know you will miss, but I'll catch up with you later. >> >> Thanks - Chuck >> >> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead >> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) >> >> >> From: >> Tim deBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: >> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." < >> [email protected]> >> Date: >> 07/14/2008 12:04 PM >> Subject: >> RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm going to be out Wed/Thursday, and flying on Friday. Looks like we need >> to have a meeting without some of us, or try next week. >> >> Tim deBoer >> Eclipse WTP PMC, RAD Release Architect and WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada >> (905) 413-3503 (tieline 969) >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> From: >> "Konstantin Komissarchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." < >> [email protected]> >> Date: >> 07/14/2008 11:00 AM >> Subject: >> RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) >> >> >> >> >> >> It turns out that tuesday morning doesn't work for me at all this week. >> How about Wednesday morning instead? >> >> >> Konstantin Komissarchik | Principal Member of Technical Staff >> Phone: +1 425 201 1795 | Mobile: +1 206 898 0611 >> Oracle Eclipse Tooling >> 411 108th Ave NE, Suite 2100 | Bellevue, WA 98004 >> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan >> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:36 AM >> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. >> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) >> >> I think this is now in conflict with the WTP PMC call where I attend. >> >> Is it possible to make this call one hour later? It is not a problem for >> me to stay one more hour in the office. >> If the change is not possible for everybody, I will try to skip the PMC >> call. >> >> Greetings, >> Kaloyan >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Chuck Bridgham >> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:30 PM >> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. >> Subject: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) >> >> >> Sorry didn't get this out in time, so lets have it Tuesday same time (11am >> EDT) >> >> Java EE tools discussion. >> >> Topics: Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> Planning... >> >> >> DIAL-IN NUMBERS & PASSCODES: >> US/Canada Toll Free: 877-421-0030 >> International call-in: >> http://wiki.eclipse.org/images/f/f6/WTP_status_phone_access.pdf >> Participant Passcode: 631004 >> >> Thanks - Chuck >> >> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead >> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) >> From: >> Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM >> To: >> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." < >> [email protected]> >> Cc: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], "General discussion of project-wide or >> architectural issues." <[email protected]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date: >> 07/10/2008 01:35 PM >> Subject: >> RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes sorry - I can do it tomorrow or Monday. >> >> Any preference? >> >> Thanks - Chuck >> >> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead >> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) >> >> From: >> "Raev, Kaloyan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "General discussion of project-wide >> or architectural issues." <[email protected]>, Chuck >> Bridgham/Raleigh/[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date: >> 07/10/2008 01:24 PM >> Subject: >> RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think we have lost the thread here... >> Chuck, what is the soonest day you can organize a telecon in the 8:00 AM >> to 9:00 AM PDT timeslot? >> >> Greetings, >> Kaloyan >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik >> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:17 PM >> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.; Chuck >> Bridgham >> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> Next week works ok for me and I suppose I can do 8 AM PDT if that's >> absolutely the only time that makes sense for everyone else. >> >> - Konstantin >> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan >> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:21 AM >> To: Chuck Bridgham >> Cc: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. >> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> Hi Chuck, >> >> Does this mean you can organize the telecon any day after Thursday from >> 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM PDT? >> >> Greetings, >> Kaloyan >> >> From: Chuck Bridgham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:58 PM >> To: Raev, Kaloyan >> Cc: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. >> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> >> Hi, >> >> This Thursday doesn't work for me, but I can meet next week, any day at >> the same time mentioned. >> >> Thanks - Chuck >> >> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead >> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) >> From: >> "Raev, Kaloyan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/[EMAIL PROTECTED], "General discussion of >> project-wide or >> architectural issues." <[email protected]> >> Date: >> 07/02/2008 08:13 AM >> Subject: >> RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It really seems we need a phone call... >> >> Chuck, I remember we had phone calls when discussing JEE5 more than year >> ago. Is it possible to use the same teleconference for this topic? >> As far as I remember the time slot was on Thursday, 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM PDT. >> >> >> Greetings, >> Kaloyan >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik >> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:13 PM >> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. >> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> I still haven't heard a viable argument for why this restriction is >> necessary. Allowing ear facet version changes does not completely address >> the scenario that I presented. In a large and complicated app, the user >> may not be ready to upgrade the ear spec level. That may be quite an >> undertaking. Regarding the relationship between facet version and >> descriptor schema, anything other than strict 1-to-1 relationship can lead >> to all sorts of problems in both WTP and adopter code. It should be >> considered an error case. Sounds like we need a phone call. >> >> - Konstantin >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan >> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:41 AM >> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. >> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> Tim, Konstantin, thank you for your comments. >> >> I agree with Tim that the facet version of the EAR should be considered as >> the max spec level of the modules that this EAR can include. This sounds >> nice in terms of validation. >> >> On the other side I agree with the scenario given by Konstantin. At the >> moment the users really cannot upgrade an existing EAR 1.4 to EAR 5 and >> add EE 5 modules to it. >> >> So, the solution in this situation I see to be that we allow upgrading the >> facet version of EAR projects. Then we can do a strict >> validation/filtering based on the EAR's facet version and at the same time >> have the Konstantin's scenario possible. How hard would it be to introduce >> this? I even see two possible option: >> 1) upgrading EAR facet version without upgrading the DD (should be quite >> simple) >> 2) upgrading EAR facet version and upgrading the DD >> >> Greetings, >> Kaloyan >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik >> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 7:14 PM >> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. >> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> Here are my views on the subject... >> >> Given that the spec is ambiguous, the question that should be asked is "is >> there at least one runtime that supports this scenario"? If the answer is >> yes for at least one runtime, then in order to follow WTP charter and not >> preclude proper integration of that runtime with WTP, we have to take a >> more allowing stance on this. There is indeed at least one runtime that >> has no problem with this scenario. I just had someone verify that WLS does >> in fact support it. >> >> The situation is made worse by the fact that we still have no support for >> spec level changes, so users can get stuck. The following scenario is not >> that uncommon: >> >> 1. User has an existing j2ee 1.4 app. >> 2. User needs to add a new module. >> 3. User wants to take advantage of java ee 5 features in new code. >> >> We should not be getting in the way of this scenario. If particular >> servers do not support this, then server adapters for those servers can >> perform that validation and alert the user. >> >> - Konstantin >> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Tim deBoer >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:07 AM >> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. >> Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> >> Hi Kaloyan, >> >> Thank you for raising this issue. I agree we are inconsistent in parts, >> and although we don't necessarily need to resolve all of the issues >> immediately we should at least have a common definition of what is >> 'correct' and may eventually be supported by WTP. >> >> Among the IBM committers we generally agree with #2, but have made an >> interesting distinction: the schema used by a DD is only a bottom boundary >> on the spec level of the EAR or module. As an example, a '1.4' EAR that >> contains an EJB 3.0 module is really just an EE 5 EAR (or EE 6.0 or ...) >> with an older DD. Likewise, EJB 3.0 annotations within an EJB module is an >> indication that the EJB is at least EE 5/EJB 3.0, even if the DD still >> points to the EJB 2.0 schema. >> >> If DD schemas and spec API usage are just a bottom boundary, it means that >> there is nothing within the contents of an EAR or module that can >> precisely determine its level. So how do we tell if it is valid for a user >> to add an EJB 3.0 module to what currently looks like a 1.4 EAR? Was it >> really an EE 5 EAR all along, do they want to uplevel the EAR, or is the >> user simply making a mistake? >> >> The solution we came to is using facets. Facet versions allow the user to >> tell us which spec level they expect an EAR/module to be at, and gives us >> something to tool for and validate against. The versions are set on >> project creation or on import based on what we initially find in the >> modules. >From there, the facet version of an EAR determines the maximum >> spec level of modules that can be added or which servers it can be run on, >> and validation can show errors for invalid modules or if the DD points to >> a schema above the level of the facet. >> >> If you agree with the original distinction (that true EAR 1.4s can't hold >> EJB 3 modules, but the schema used by the DD is only a bottom boundary on >> the spec level), then I think you'll eventually come to the same >> conclusion we have. Please feel free to let me know what you think and >> others can chime in, or we can discuss on one of the WTP calls. >> >> Thanks, >> Tim deBoer >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> From: >> "Raev, Kaloyan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." < >> [email protected]> >> Date: >> 06/26/2008 09:04 AM >> Subject: >> [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> I want to bring up again an issue that was discussed some time ago in >> Bugzilla. It is about mixing of spec levels of EAR and included modules. >> There are two bugs related: >> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=220929 >> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=229893 >> >> Everybody agree that EAR with spec level X could include modules with >> spec level X or lower. Example: EAR 5 can include EJB 2.1. >> But there is no consensus of opinion on EAR with spec level X to include >> modules with spec level higher than X. Example: EAR 1.4 to include EJB >> 3.0. There are two contrary opinions: >> 1. EAR 1.4 can include EJB 3.0 >> 2. EAR 1.4 cannot include EJB 3.0. >> >> The supporters of opinion 1 says that it is not forbidden by the Java EE >> spec. >> The supporters of opinion 2 says that it is (at least indirectly) >> forbidden by the spec. This is because the contract of the Java EE spec >> says that a deployment module compliant with spec level X must always be >> able to deploy on an application server compliant with spec level X. Now >> let's look again at our example of EAR 1.4 including EJB 3.0. EAR 1.4 is >> a J2EE 1.4 deployment module and it is guaranteed by the spec that it >> will deploy on all J2EE 1.4 compliant servers. But if we try to deploy >> it on an J2EE 1.4 compliant app server, that is not at the same time >> Java EE 5 compliant, then our deployment will fail, because of the >> included EJB 3.0 module (which is Java EE 5 spec level). >> >> At the moment there is an inconsistency in several dialogs in WTP >> regarding this issue. For example the Java EE Module Dependencies >> property page of an EAR 1.4 project filters Java EE 5 modules for >> selection, while at the same time the project creation wizard allows a >> EJB 3.0 project to be added to an existing EAR 1.4 project. >> >> I suggest that we discuss this problem and hope we will have an >> agreement for WTP 3.0.1. I invite all application server vendors >> represented in this mailing list to express their support for either >> opinion 1 or opinion 2. >> >> Greetings, >> Kaloyan Raev >> Eclipse WTP Committer >> <http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/people/person.php?name=raev> >> Senior Developer >> NW C JS TOOLS JEE (BG) >> SAP Labs Bulgaria >> T +359/2/9157-416 >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> www.sap.com >> P Save a tree - please do not print this email unless you really need >> to! >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wtp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wtp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wtp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wtp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> wtp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev >> >> >> >> > > >
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
