As a modular component I think this J2EE verifier engine/processor would be very useful in a number of projects; it could even be a standalone module that would allow a developer to validate their archive before ever even trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of course, you wouldn't be able to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across your tty when you go to deploy your archive; that would be the one drawback....
Regards, Weston On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. Price wrote: > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back at me, poor choice of words > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms of "rules" as conditions that > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment; not in terms of a full blown > rules engine (though this would be somewhat interesting). At the very core > what you really have is a set of conditions that when applied to a > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be met for the archive to be > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a watchdog that prevents archives > from violating a discreet set of constraints. > > Regards, > > Weston > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S wrote: > > i did not have this rule engine picture when i started thinking abt this > > verifier.. > > ru looking at the design of some open src rule engines for designing this > > verifier? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM > > To: Srihari S; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few reasons: > > What we are really talking about is a type of rules engine where certain > > conditions have to be met to achieve a successful "deployment". The most > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be to make this module > > extensible and "forward looking" because we all know that specifications > > are static and never change right? :-) As Geronimo grows with J2EE (and > > all its associated specifications) the engine would similarly have to > > grow as well and accommodate the new standards. This could make for some > > interesting design and implementation decisions. > > > > Regards, > > > > Weston > > > > Of course we all know that specification requirements never change right > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 10:54 am, Srihari S wrote: > > > I agree with you Weston..this is a good staarting point to gain > > > > familiarity > > > > > with the specs > > > Count me in too.:)) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:01 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > > > > I think this would actually be quite interesting to work on. Man, if > > > there is > > > a way to become familiar with the J2EE specs....this is it! > > > > > > If you wanted someone to work with on this I would be happy to help. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Weston > > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 05:03 am, Denes wrote: > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > I'm intending to begin writing something for the deployment verifier, > > > > both to learn more about the specs and (hopefully) help with the > > > > project. > > > > > > > > Some questions: > > > > > > > > 1. Is there anybody working on this issue? > > > > 2. Will this be based on openEJB's deployment verifier? > > > > 3. Something that I never understood. As I don't have commit > > > > permission on cvs, to whom I should send patches/codes that I create? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Denes
