[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : | I'd expect this test to fail because there's no deployer with 1 output? Fail? The order is trivial - 1,2,3,4. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239916#4239916 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239916 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : And I'd expect the following test to pass: | Your test is wrong. #2 takes JBWMD as input, where #3,#4 declare that as output. So, this is properly ordered: 3,4,2 View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239917#4239917 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239917 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
alesj wrote : | #2 takes JBWMD as input, where #3,#4 declare that as output. | Ah, they all declare JBWMD as input and output. Then the name comparison kicks in - as the last resort on how to order. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239919#4239919 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239919 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
alesj wrote : alesj wrote : | | Then the name comparison kicks in - as the last resort on how to order. | This is fundamentally wrong IMHO. | Current deployers ordering algorithm is broken. | You can't implement deployers ordering by just comparing two deployers. | Two deployers are not comparable in general. | View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239921#4239921 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239921 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
Current deployers sorting is broken because: - it doesn't take stages into account - it doesn't validate inputs - it sorts deployers on insert, but should sort them after deployers chain initialization - two deployers are not comparable in general View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239925#4239925 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239925 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : | * sorting agorithm have to take stages, inputs, outputs and relative order into account | And deployers name comparison as last ordering decision ;) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239931#4239931 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239931 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
Example of use case that shold fail but won't: Deployer1: - stage: PRE_REAL - inputs: output1 Deployer2: - stage: REAL - outputs: output1 PRE_REAL is before REAL. Current domino sorting algorithm will not detect it. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239932#4239932 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239932 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
What do you propose then? If we have to resort to name comparison it either means: * the order of how we process attachments doesn't matter * you are describing/ordering your deployers wrong == lack of info View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239926#4239926 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239926 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : | * deployer stages have to be comparable | Why? That's why they are called stages and they are already comparable - how else do you think they fit into our state machine. ;-) richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : | * deployers have to be sorted on deployers chain retrieval (i.e. in method protected synchronized List getDeployersList(String stageName)) | Why? Based on what? This would be complete waste of time/performance. richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : | * sorting agorithm have to take stages, inputs, outputs and relative order into account | Why/how stages? All the rest is already taken into account. richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : | * different sorting algorithm have to be implemented (domino is wrong because two deployers are not comparable in general) Sure. But re-read my previous post: alesj wrote : | If we have to resort to name comparison it either means: | * the order of how we process attachments doesn't matter | * you are describing/ordering your deployers wrong == lack of info | View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239954#4239954 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239954 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : | - it doesn't validate inputs | Validate how? Order at runtime based on the actual attachment values? Too much hassle for something that sounds useless in 99,9%. Not to mention that it's not deterministic. richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : | - it sorts deployers on insert, but should sort them after deployers chain initialization | What would you gain by this? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239957#4239957 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239957 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : Example of use case that shold fail but won't: | | Deployer1: | - stage: PRE_REAL | - inputs: output1 | Deployer2: | - stage: REAL | - outputs: output1 | | PRE_REAL is before REAL. Current domino sorting algorithm will not detect it. I never said creating a deployer is completely trivial. I mean, the actual impl with all the existing helpers/abstract deployers, is trivial, but how to properly set stage and inputs/outputs is more difficult task that it first appears. But that's why we already provide you with Deployers statistics (off by default), which show you * deployer inputs/outputs * deployer times See DeployersImpl for more details. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239965#4239965 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239965 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
richard.opa...@jboss.com wrote : Example of use case that shold fail but won't: | | Deployer1: | - stage: PRE_REAL | - inputs: output1 | Deployer2: | - stage: REAL | - outputs: output1 | | PRE_REAL is before REAL. Current domino sorting algorithm will not detect it. The only reasonable thing here might be that we check any previous stages for inputs, and potentially break (throw an exception) if some deployer requires an input from later output. But this should be properly discussed first on MC dev forum, as I'm still not convinced this is something we should do. e.g. we might just call it lazy deployer developer, as (s)he didn't bother to properly check previous deployers via statistics View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239969#4239969 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239969 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
In order to fix it the following is necessary to be done: * deployer stages have to be comparable * deployers have to be sorted on deployers chain retrieval (i.e. in method protected synchronized List getDeployersList(String stageName)) * sorting agorithm have to take stages, inputs, outputs and relative order into account * different sorting algorithm have to be implemented (domino is wrong because two deployers are not comparable in general) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239929#4239929 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239929 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
And I'd expect the following test to pass:
---
public void testWebServicesDeployersOrder() throws Exception
{
DeployerClient main = createMainDeployer();
TestFlowDeployer deployer1 = new TestFlowDeployer(FakeDeployer);
deployer1.setOutputs(WebServicesMetaData, WebServiceDeployment,
JBossWebMetaData );
addDeployer(main, deployer1);
TestFlowDeployer deployer2 = new
TestFlowDeployer(WebServicesDeploymentTypeDeployer);
deployer2.setInputs(WebServicesMetaData, WebServiceDeployment,
JBossWebMetaData );
deployer2.setOutputs(DeploymentType, JBossWebMetaData);
addDeployer(main, deployer2);
TestFlowDeployer deployer3 = new
TestFlowDeployer(WebServiceDeployerEJB);
deployer3.setInputs(JBossWebMetaData, DeploymentType);
deployer3.setOutputs(JBossWebMetaData);
addDeployer(main, deployer3);
TestFlowDeployer deployer4 = new
TestFlowDeployer(WebServiceDeployerPreJSE);
deployer4.setInputs(JBossWebMetaData, DeploymentType);
deployer4.setOutputs(JBossWebMetaData);
addDeployer(main, deployer4);
TestFlowDeployer deployer5 = new TestFlowDeployer(AbstractWarDeployer);
deployer5.setInputs(JBossWebMetaData);
deployer5.setOutputs(WarDeployment);
addDeployer(main, deployer5);
TestFlowDeployer deployer6 = new TestFlowDeployer(ServiceCL);
deployer6.setInputs(DeploymentType, WarDeployment);
addDeployer(main, deployer6);
Deployment deployment = createSimpleDeployment(testWSDeploymentOrder);
main.addDeployment(deployment);
main.process();
System.out.println(D1: + deployer1.getDeployOrder());
System.out.println(D2: + deployer2.getDeployOrder());
System.out.println(D3: + deployer3.getDeployOrder());
System.out.println(D4: + deployer4.getDeployOrder());
System.out.println(D5: + deployer5.getDeployOrder());
System.out.println(D6: + deployer6.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(1, deployer1.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(2, deployer2.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(3, deployer3.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(4, deployer4.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(5, deployer5.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(6, deployer6.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(-1, deployer1.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(-1, deployer2.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(-1, deployer3.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(-1, deployer4.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(-1, deployer5.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(-1, deployer6.getUndeployOrder());
main.removeDeployment(deployment);
main.process();
assertEquals(1, deployer1.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(2, deployer2.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(3, deployer3.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(4, deployer4.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(5, deployer5.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(6, deployer6.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(12, deployer1.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(11, deployer2.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(10, deployer3.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(9, deployer4.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(8, deployer5.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(7, deployer6.getUndeployOrder());
main.addDeployment(deployment);
main.process();
assertEquals(13, deployer1.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(14, deployer2.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(15, deployer3.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(16, deployer4.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(17, deployer5.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(18, deployer6.getDeployOrder());
assertEquals(12, deployer1.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(11, deployer2.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(10, deployer3.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(9, deployer4.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(8, deployer5.getUndeployOrder());
assertEquals(7, deployer6.getUndeployOrder());
}
---
The test output is:
---
...
973 DEBUG [DeployersImpl] Fully Deployed testWSDeploymentOrder
D1: 1
D2: 4
D3: 2
D4: 3
D5: 5
D6: 6
...
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239756#4239756
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239756
___
jboss-user mailing list
jboss-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
[jboss-user] [Microcontainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering
Cross reference: JBDEPLOY-201 View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4239758#4239758 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4239758 ___ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
