They are on the wiki page: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheJ2EE/J2eeSpecs
I haven't read the j2ee 1.4 specs to see what it says yet. --- Vikram Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are the minimum versions of the specifications > specified anywhere as yet? > > Vikram > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Opacki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:46 PM > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier > > > Yes. > > --- Srihari S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
