Hey
IMHO and FWIW :-)
Malcolm Sparks wrote:
> It all seems a bit messy. Vendors have to respect ID values that have
> been included, but be able to reference tags in deployment descriptors
> that have no IDs. Or, as Mark suggests, to use a tool, which should
> only add IDs if they don't already exist.
>
> If IDs were mandatory it would cause more pain for bean providers,
> especially those not using tools. It's a very bad thing for anything
> to cause pain for bean providers.
>
> Neither is the current situation ideal. I can reference an EJB using
> the <ejb-name> tag, but if its value changes my reference becomes
> stale. So my tools should treat it with "final" status... but what if
> other tools are used...
<ejb-name> seems to be used by the deployer and bean developer roles to
create <ejb-links>. If I were to make a tool to handle those
relationships (uhm.. which I am..) I would simply add some code to
update all <ejb-links> when I change a <ejb-name>.
ID's, as I see it, are for vendor specific tools that need to reference
elements in the DD. The DD itself should, as above, not use ID's as
there are other better ways to do that.
Since my tool will be specifically for Bean Developer and Assembler
roles only, I don't see the problem you're referring to. But as a
vendor, if you make a tool that takes care of Bean, Assembler *and*
Deployer roles, then the confusion you mention is more apparent and
possible.
IMHO the above guideline (=only use ID's for vendor specific links) is
the Right(tm) one :-)
> So perhaps us vendors should form some consensus on this issue.
That would make lots of sense, yes ;-) And a heck of a lot less pain for
developers who, for any reason :-), needs to be able to deploy an
application in several servers from different vendors.
> Will the norm be to use IDs?
For vendor2DD links: I think so, yes, definitely.
> If so, will vendors agree not to change
> IDs in tags, and to only add them if they are absent?
This suggestion has my vote. There's really no reason to have concensus
on ID format or such though. Anything that is unique within the DD is
fine IMHO (e.g. "1", "entity2", "Id3", "link15" or similar are ok.
Whatever really, as long as uniqueness is guaranteed!).
OTOH, in order to properly support evolution of the application the ID
should perhaps be prefixed with a vendor tag (e.g. "com.iona.12").
Otherwise there are some insert-link-remove-insert-link scenarios that
will cause faulty/stale links. For example: element is inserted, then
linked to giving it ID "12", element is removed, and then one element is
added and linked to, which gives it the ID "12" which is free. The first
link is now faulty. Using prefixes will make it easier, or rather will
make it *possible*, for vendor tools to determine which ID's are free to
use. Blah, etc, you get the picture..
Just my 2 cents... as Malcolm I would be very interested in hearing
about other vendors opinions on this one!
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~ricob684
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
