Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in
on 15-03-2 22.05, David Jencks at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yes - automagic is simpler yet very much more complex - economical tho at a higher initial price ... Could ANT genjar http://www.riggshill.com/projects/genjar/ help with filtering classes in a dependency phase ? ... /peter_f ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in
I thought this worked in alpha (can't remember having any problem with datasource and jars)? If all .sar's (datasources) are deployed before the .jar's, it will solve my problem. Are there any dependencies at deploy time between .jars with beans and ejb-jar.xmls? ejb-links? Isn't most dependencies dicovered when running the beans? (if not, this should be a issue for the 2.x-versions too). Does it take too much time too scan all xml-files in all .?ars first to find the right order? Also if we need to specify dependencies ourself, it is easier to specify in every bean what other ?jar it depends on instead of renumbering the order (renaming many files). Another idea could be to check the timestamps of the files and deploy them in the order they have been deployed the first time. This won't work if some modules is redeployed though. (This is just my opinions on this from a jboss user perspective) Marius On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 15:47, Peter Fagerlund wrote: on 15-03-2 22.05, David Jencks at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Yes - automagic is simpler yet very much more complex - economical tho at a higher initial price ... Could ANT genjar http://www.riggshill.com/projects/genjar/ help with filtering classes in a dependency phase ? ... /peter_f ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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-development ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development __ 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-development
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]]On 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-development ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development __ 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-development ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in
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]]On 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-development ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development __ 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-development ___ 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
Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in
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
Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in
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). I was under the impression that the dependency system took care of this... which it does in some cases and does not in others. 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. Yes, yes... but in the short term, I am going to put that sorting fluff back in... need to put out a few fires here then I will commit it. --jason ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in
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-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in
You recall correctly... As a non-developer, I don't know if my vote counts, but I think this is a bad idea too. From: David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:43:28 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] deploy: the votes are in 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. ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
