Hi!
"Jung , Dr. Christoph" wrote:
> If you look at my last mail in response to Toby, I have stepped back from
> doing to much
> managing at the EJBJarDeployer aka ContainerFactory - but I think that in
> order to extend the its ejb-ref scope, a minimal adaption will be
> necessary.
I think what you need to do is let the CF ask the metadata model for
what possible references are available. Then, the metadata model can
understand that it may be used in an application and thus ask the other
nodes for the complete set of references (or rather, you'd ask the J2EE
application metadata, which will ask the nodes).
And then this can easily be extended to a system by letting the J2EE
application metadata ask *its* parent, which will be a System metadata
object. A nice little tree.
> I think that this is not too hard (maybe at the sacrifice of arbitrary,
> cross-application ejb-refs) - see Tobies and my attempts to define the
> necessary steps of this policy:
>
> * Deploying applications means to recursively deploy parent applications
> BEFORE.
>
> * Undeploying applications means to recursively undeploy children
> applications BEFORE.
>
> * Redeploy means undeploy, then deploy and AFTERWARDS a recursive deploy of
> the undeployed children.
See previous posts. The first step is only really possible (IMHO) if you
use the system notion, since I do not think that it is a good idea to
have child nodes know the URL of the parents. This is too easy to break.
By using the system notion all you have to change during install is the
URL's in the system XML description (since this will change, perhaps,
for each install).
> now�s the time.
No, I don't think so. As I have argued in these last posts the metadata
model is the spine of all of this. Please don't being this work before
it is done (and yes, I know I'm late with it). That will be the
best/cleanest/simplest solution IMO.
What's your opinion?
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
