If the arrows means "uses" I think that's right. Not sure about what DeploymentManager really is. Is it the deploy tool, some daemon on server, or both?
Denes > -----Mensagem original----- > De: Jonathan Duty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Enviada em: segunda-feira, 11 de agosto de 2003 13:49 > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Assunto: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you > were describing. Do I have the correct Idea of your vision? > The image is attached. Hope this helps others out also. > ~Jonathan > > > > Weston M. Price wrote: > > >I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded > to > >earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for coordinating > the > >interaction between the verification engine and the deployment > engine....sort > >of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled relying on an > >external agent to provide an higher level of service, in this case the > >complete deployment of a J2EE archive. > > > >Weston > > > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote: > > > > > >>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface > >>with the deployer. I would definitely like to > >>implement the SPI for the deployer. > >> > >>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring > >>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs > >>databases and relational mappings, or any such other > >>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)? > >> > >>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come > >>up with a list potential technical problems we could > >>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file. > >> > >>Labeeb Syed > >> > >>--- Chris Opacki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the > >>>object model that has been defined in the deployment > >>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are > >>>also > >>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that > >>>both modules might use. > >>> > >>>--- "Weston M. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work > >>>> > >>>> > >>>closely > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>together....Chris made an > >>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are > >>>>certain basic facilities that > >>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on > >>>> > >>>> > >>>a > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>common object model for > >>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could > >>>>probably develop our own > >>>>streams, attributes, behavior..... > >>>> > >>>>Weston > >>>> > >>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki > >>>> > >>>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>=== message truncated === > >> > >> > >>__________________________________ > >>Do you Yahoo!? > >>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > >>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > >> > >>
