Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the deployer shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has run...its a good idea that the deployableobject are build from within a controller that sends them to the verifier for verification and then to the deployer. Something along that lines at a high level. we can reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
--- Jonathan Duty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 You've convinced me. That would be a bad a$$ > tool to have as a > developer. > > Plus, the deployment team could use it if they want > to verify the > archive schema before they start deploying it. > > Count me in! > ~Jonathan > > > Jonathan Duty > Software Developer - eWashtenaw > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > I agree completely. I think what we are talking > about are two modules > that are > close cousins. The verification manager is again, > the "front-line" of > defense > for the deployment manager. I would assume the > deployment manager would > deal > with critical errors such as LinkageConstraints, > incorrect classfile > versions > etc. while the verfication manager will handle > actual semantic > fallibities in > the deployment descriptors based upon the existing > specifications. > > The reason I mentioned a seperate verification > module was that I > would > developers (hell, I know I would) like an engine > that given a deployment > > platform could validate their archive before ever > trying to drop it in > the > chute. This would save a lot of time largely due to > the fact that XML > descriptors are not typed and you don't know if they > are "correct" at > compile > time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this in my > opion would be to > provide hooks for an ANT task that would verify the > archive during > compile > time. > > Regards, > > Weston > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan Duty > wrote: > > Why couldn't they be close friends. Could this > verifier, even as a > > separate module, be a subset of the deploy module? > I mean we don't > want > > to deploy something that the J2EE server will not > accept. > > > > Maybe these 2 groups should work close together. > > > > ~Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the > > verifier would be close friends. > > ;) > > > > --- Srihari S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > True > > > Our module is just going to check and declare > > > whether or not a given unit of > > > deployment > > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not. > > > > > > Nothing more..nothing less. > > > Building this unit will be our mission..right > > > weston?? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Weston M. Price > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > > > > And even further, let's clarify the verification > is > > > a completely different > > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on > this > > > one at least in terms of > > > the way we are thinking about this module? > > > > > > Weston > > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S > 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 > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
