> > David, if you are reading this... and got this far down... what is the > > plan to > > have this issue tied down and solved once and for all. I think the > > approche > > that dain, you and I discussed in Tahoe is along the correct lines. > > > > Do you have any idea when the wrinkles will be sorted out? > > What _ARE_ the wrinkles????
Um... the problem is that the dependency system does not cover all components does not cover the relation ship between config and configless archice (ie. jar). Didn't we talk about this in Tahoe? Is this the same David... or have I been sucked into a parrallel universe...? > I spent the weekend writing a new local jdbc > wrapper rather than looking for deployment problems. I need a clear list of > problems without a lot of arguing about solutions. I don't have the full list... but one is all of this ordering maddness. > I get distracted easily. Yes that is clear =] > We have right now: > > mbeans depend on their classes, if the class isn't there they wait. If it > is removed they save their configuration, and if the class comes back they > recreate themselves with the saved config. I am pretty convinced that this > cannot be modeled as an mbean dependency without a really major rewrite of > the dependency system which I think is undesirable. This dependency is > really different from mbean-mbean dependency and I don't think we should > try to force it to fit. I think it works fine the way it is now. Didn't we descide to model these dependencies as MBean dependency on the MBean that represents that deployed file? This way all depends are modeled in the same fashion. Seriously don't you remeber having this conversation? > ejbs can depend on other mbeans. Its not automatic, but you can put a > depends element in jboss.xml in the bean config or in the container-conf. > > We already have depends between mbeans. I'd still like to remove the > dependency wait in the create step, but not before 3.0 comes out. > > Once again... what are the problems? Ok, perhaps I am consued... but if all of these dependency issues are solved, then we do not need to have any ordering in a DS, as the dependency system will handle bringing components up when dependents are available. If this is true, then we can remove the need for sorting URLs from any DS and we can have DS peers with out having to worry about what order they come up in... cause it plain does not matter. If this is not the case, then there is a problem with the dependency system and that should be resolved. I had assumed it was not due to the sorting madness which still seems to be alive in some of us. I had also assumed that part of the solution was to turn deployed files into MBeans and config into MBeans per the talk with dain and you. Which is it? --jason ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
