just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee 1.4 spec lets have a common understanding on this...u cud specify the correct version
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Opacki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also provides a high level architecture describe the relations between deployable components and objects in the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an interesting read. --- Srihari S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up using > the rule engine concept > it will because of u:) > So at a very hi level we can look at the verifier as > > Input Process Output > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with error log > WAR by parsing the DD > EAR and applying correctness > RAR rules > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a > standalone app and we must > design its internals in this spirit > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how it > will get into the > geronimo frwk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > 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 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
