The problem is that I gave Scott a change to Installer so that ejb-jars are
NOT put into the common classpath.
I have some concerns that I would like addressed about the patch that is on
the website before it is put into CVS.
Having read the code from the patch, it seems to implement 3 main changes.
1. Cleans up / modularizes the code in ContainerFactory.java.
this is not really a concern, actually the new code looks great.
thank you to Tom.
2. Moves the process of iterating through multiple ejb-jars from
J2eeDeployer to ContainerFactory
I really dont like this. It is unnecessary (doesn't accomplish
anything) and that is really the job of J2eeDeployer.
3. Puts all of the ejb-jars in the application classpath.
As I noted above, I just patched Installer so that this no longer
happens!! 2 Reasons:
A. It introduces a bug if there are multiple jaws-managed beans
B. It doesnt make any sense!! Yes, I know that J2EE RI does it this way,
but there is nothing in the spec to indicate (or even suggest) that it
should be done this way, and I regard the RI behavior as a bug. It is both
cleaner, and very easy, to simply add the remote interfaces (and other
shared classes) to a shared jar file. You have to have them in a shared jar
file anyway for clients to use them.
I do NOT think that deployment of the JPS unmodified is any test of Jboss's
correctness. JPS is not the spec, and J2EE RI does some non-spec things to
make it work. In any case, it is really not hard to put the shared classes
in a shared jar file and reference it in the manifest. If that was too much
work, I suppose you could just reference the ejb-jar in the war manifest (I
dont know if that would work but its a thought).
So, before we apply this patch I would like to hear some other opinions
about what the correct behavior should be. Can anyone find any support for
this change in the spec? Do people want to implement it anyway? Perhaps it
could be implemented as a configuration option to keep everyone happy.
If we do check in this change (optional or not) then we should patch jaws so
that it will continue to work. I am willing to do this if noone else will.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott M Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:44 AM
To: JBoss-Dev
Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: [jBoss-User] multiple EJB-jars in one EAR
deployment problem
I looked at the multi-jar patches last night. I'll integrate them into the
current
changes and test the petstore example this weekend and commit them if
they work. Hopefully this will improve things until Toby et. al are able to
rewrite the deployment scheme.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: [jBoss-Dev] Re: [jBoss-User] multiple EJB-jars in one EAR
deployment problem
> >
> > Well, after getting the new snapshot to run, I am running into an
> > unexpected deployment problem -- EARs that deployed nicely previously,
> > refuse to do so any more. After initial investigation, we are running
into
> > the same problem as before applying Tom Coleman's patch to previous
> > snapshots of JBoss.
> >
>
> Scott Stark has been making changes to the Deployer. Last I heard,
> Toby Allsopp was getting ready to tear into it as well.
>
> Toby is aware of the patch for the deployment of multiple Ejb's. I
> don't think Scott is. That's my fault. I was hesitant to put it into
> CVS without a larger test base.
>
> Maybe Toby's planning the "The Great Deployer Clean-up" and will figure
> a way to get this in there.
>
> The patch (against 1/21/2001 CVS) is available at:
>
> <www.jboss.org/newsite/documentation/petstore-1.1.1-patch.zip>
>
> It involves J2eeDeployer.java, ConainerFactory.java, and
> ContainerFactoryMBean.java
>
> For the record, the patch was written by Mike Leuders and contributed
> by Richard Gyger.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
