Jason _DID_ remove some ordering code. marc's main deployer, added after jboss 3 alpha but in beta, sorted all the "new" files in a scan according to the same principles as the subpackages in an, e.g., ear. I think Jason was thinking in terms of urls (as in URLScanner) where you list them explicitly in whatever order you like, and put the directory scanning in later (I think).
My opinion still is that handling this automatically is the best solution, by converting every kind of dependency into an mbean dependency. If we get people used to numbering their files, then they will have a delightful opportunity to number them in an order different from that required by an actual dependency analysis. david jencks On 2002.03.15 15:02:58 -0500 Adrian Brock wrote: > Hi, > > Jason didn't remove the ordering. It wasn't > really there for the resources. I got stung by it > in the alpha, but I didn't understand it then. > > Before, there were MBean dependencies of > J2eeDeployer on JarDeployer, RarDeployer, WarDeployer > and ServiceDeployer. > > These have now gone, but notice it was an accident that > the database got loaded before the J2ee deployments. > > Regards, > Adrian > > > But don't you think some sort of ordering (like what > > was there before Jason > > removed it) should be implicit? > > > > Datasources specified in .xml files should be > > deployed before any > > EAR/WAR/JAR files, don't you think? > > > > That seems like a common/simple scenario and I don't > > think a user with that > > basic of a dependency should be required to specially > > number their > > deployment files... Though I don't think requiring it > > for more complex > > deployment order is a big deal... > > > > > From: "Bill Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:37:25 -0500 > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in > > > > > > This also greatly simplifies the code right? Just > > sort the directory and > > > you have your ordering. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > n Behalf Of Chris > > >> Harris > > >> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:31 PM > > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in > > >> > > >> > > >> I don't think there was any intention of forcing > > people to > > >> rename their files. The point is that if you need > > an > > >> explicit ordering this is the easiest way for the > > user to > > >> do it. If you don't need ordering then call it > > anything you > > >> want. So deployment order is something like > > >> > > >> all xxxMyName.[j|s|w|e|r]ar/xml files > > >> all anyothernameinanyorder.[j|s|w|e|r]ar/xml files > > >> > > >> (apologies for syntax!) > > >> > > >> So this way you can specify stuff which absolutely > > has to > > >> go first and, if you don't care when it gets > > deployed, then > > >> name it whatever you like and it gets deployed > > after the > > >> ones that need to be first. > > >> > > >> (disclaimer: I was at the London training and I > > did vote > > >> for the numbering solution) > > >> > > >> c > > >> > > >> --- David Jencks > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> I'm with Jason on this one. I think asking > > people to > > >>> change their file > > >>> names to ensure deploy order is ludicrous. As I > > recall, > > >>> the unix sysv > > >>> numbering is all on symlinks, not the > > scripts/whatever > > >>> themselves. > > >>> > > >>> david jencks > > >>> > > >>> On 2002.03.14 18:18:46 -0500 Jason Dillon wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> deploy1/2/3 zero votes > > >>>>> 000-999mywathever.xar:11 votes > > >>>>> deploy.order: 9 votes > > >>>>> > > >>>>> some just don't give a hoot > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ok the deploy.order was a good idea given by a > > >>> sweedish guy sitting at > > >>>> the > > >>>>> back of the class, it goes like this, put a > > >>> deploy.order that specifies > > >>>> the > > >>>>> order in which you deploy the files, it means > > that you > > >>> put for example > > >>>>> <deploy-order> > > >>>>> the-first-file.xar > > >>>>> the-second-file.xar > > >>>>> </deploy-order> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> This is the same as explicitly listing your > > deployment > > >>> urls... which if > > >>>> you don't specify a file:// directory url the > > order is > > >>> as you list it. > > >>>> It is only when listing from a directory which > > causes > > >>> this > > >>>> dependency/order problem. > > >>>> > > >>>>> I kind of liked it, since it means you can put > > >>> additional information, > > >>>> but > > >>>>> sacha pointed out you can also put a > > order.readme file > > >>> and be done with > > >>>>> this, with the drawbacks that you could > > actually mess > > >>> up the names > > >>>> easily > > >>>>> (bound to happen) and that you needed multiple > > >>> deploy.order files to get > > >>>> at > > >>>>> the same result if you went for dynamic > > deployments. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> so the 000-999.xar idea is the one, if someone > > wants > > >>> to do it go > > >>>> ahead.... > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I still think this is a really bad idea. > > >>>> > > >>>> We have a half functional dependency system... > > so > > >>> rather than fix is, we > > >>>> artificially force users to number there > > deployments, > > >>> or staticly list > > >>>> the urls to deploy. > > >>>> > > >>>> How does that make the JBoss deployment system > > easy? > > >>> One of the big > > >>>> features of JBoss is easy deployment... which > > this just > > >>> basically tosses > > >>>> out the window. The instructions for deployment > > go > > >>> from : > > >>>> > > >>>> "copy to deploy/" > > >>>> > > >>>> to > > >>>> > > >>>> "copy to deploy/, make sure that the file name > > is > > >>> prefixed with a number > > >>>> such that it is larger than all dependency > > deployments > > >>> and lower than > > >>>> other deployments which depend on it. If you > > are not > > >>> sure what the > > >>>> dependencys are then trial and error... or go > > look > > >>> through each > > >>>> deplopment descriptor and...". > > >>>> > > >>>> Why not just put the simple sorting bits back in > > UDS > > >>> until the > > >>>> dependency issue can be resolved? > > >>>> > > >>>> --jason > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Jboss-development mailing list > > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-dev > > lopment > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Jboss-development mailing list > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> > > >> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-dev > > lopment > > >> > > >> __________________________________________________ > > >> Do You Yahoo!? > > >> Everything you'll ever need on one web page > > >> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > > >> http://uk.my.yahoo.com > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Jboss-development mailing list > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-dev > > lopment > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Jboss-development mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-dev > > lopment > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Jboss-development mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-dev > > lopment > > > _________________________________________________________ > View thread online: http://main.jboss.org/thread.jsp?forum=66&thread=10892 > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
