Having to nest jars in a particular manner to achieve the correct
deployment ordering certainly is not simple. Here your talking
about the static deployment directories while all of the current
issues are with self-contained deployment units of j2ee components
and services. We need a simple mechan
This can be done today simply by including the list of 3 or whatever
directories in the URLDeploymentScanner. Jason just needs to sort each
directory separately when he puts the sorting back in.
david jencks
On 2002.03.12 21:56:01 -0500 marc fleury wrote:
> ok, it is 3 am in london and i drank
Are you sure it is that hard to understand or do? Usually the default
order of peer subpackages works fine: if you want something else you can
use nesting.
I think that if we can convert jndi dependencies into mbean dependencies a
lot of problems will go away without any more deployment descript
rvice. Likewise, if a service is using an
ejb or servlet how is this specified?
- Original Message -
From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
> Are you sure it
>
>
>deploy/first/
>
>deploy/second/
>
>deploy/third/
>
>a la 'init.d/rc1-2-3'
>
Not such a hot idea. There was talk about this a while ago
What is the real issue here? Why doesn't the depends attribute handle it?
>
>a bit more complex to code but would be worth it...
>
Does not seem lik
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:33 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
|
|
|
|Ordering should not be a function of the packaging. I should
|be able to creat
|This can be done today simply by including the list of 3 or whatever
|directories in the URLDeploymentScanner. Jason just needs to sort each
|directory separately when he puts the sorting back in.
right, let's just do that, it is simple and will cover 99% cases.
we need to
1- document the depl
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|fleury
|Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:19 AM
|To: David Jencks
|Cc: Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
|
|
||This can be done today
David Jencks
|Cc: Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
|
|
|
|
||-Original Message-
||From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
||[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
||fleury
||Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:19 AM
||To: David Jencks
||Cc: Jboss-Dev
|Why doesn't depends handle this?
because
marcf
|
|--jason
|
|
|
|___
|Jboss-development mailing list
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
___
Jboss-development
On 13 Mar, marc fleury wrote:
[...]
> The problem is a painful russian doll structure.
>
> 3- however there are 3 static directories deploy/first, deploy/second,
> deploy/third, actually i could call them
> deploy/deploy1, deploy/deploy2/deploy3... and allow for arbitrary numbers
> but we would p
on 13-03-2 14.42, marc fleury at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> rc1-rc6 has been in Unix for 20 years, so let's stop fucking around
A understandeble order there ... mmm - I can not help thinking of a observer
pattern design for the dependency and deploy order. Together with a
interface registry laye
- Original Message -
From: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "David Jencks"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed
|/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S10network will start before /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S80sendmail
|because 10 commes before 80.
whatever,
stuff in rc2 is started before stuff in rc3
also the S10network before the S80sendmail is a convention that is actually
great, it is an explicit ordering of deployments and is maybe
.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From: "Scott M Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:47 AM
S
|This is using Ant as the deployment language. If the sar depends on the
|war because it is adapting a legacy protocol to soap for example, you
|would then need to repackage the above to:
|
|jar/
|---war/
|--sar
|--jar2
that is correct,
|
|I would rather see an ear as the standalone dep
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:00 AM
|To: Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
|
|
|Or equivalently, mirror the deploy1, deploy2
Hi,
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 16:47, marc fleury wrote:
> |/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S10network will start before /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S80sendmail
> |because 10 commes before 80.
>
> whatever,
>
> stuff in rc2 is started before stuff in rc3
this is not correct when looked upon from the UNIX perspective. My
syste
g you need, no?
Bill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
> fleury
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:00 AM
> To: Scott M Stark; Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net
> Subject: RE: [JB
t; fleury
|> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:00 AM
|> To: Scott M Stark; Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net
|> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
|>
|>
|>
|>
|> |-Original Message-
|> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
> fleury
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:50 PM
> To: Bill Burke; Scott M Stark; Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge .
> Net
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ordering p
|I like this "I'll ask the class". How many other software
|projects have the
|actual developers talking to the user base?
you moron, our user base of today will spawn our developers of tomorrow. it
is our best recruitment ground.
you should see the class, the jboss boot-camp for developers, th
ott M Stark"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
> directory solution is better and easier to maintain IMHO than the SXX
stuff.
&g
ry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "JBoss Dev list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:19 AM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 16:47, marc fleury wrote:
> > |/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S10network will start befo
>
>
>and there was an order at the same level xml>sar>rar>ear>war>ejb or
>something like this.
>
>btw jason, we really need this back,
>
Will do.
>THEN, yes i agree that forcing order through containment needs to be
>enhanced by some explicit dependency order.
>
Definently... we have the abilit
ssage -
>From: "Scott M Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
>
>
>>- Original Messag
TECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
>>fleury
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:00 AM
>>To: Scott M Stark; Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge . Net
>>Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>|-Original Message-
>>|From:
es for everyone. Directoy
> >ordering and should be good enough for the implicit
> and explicit
> >ordering you need, no?
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf O
Hi,
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 23:53, Jason Dillon wrote:
> It will however complicate the management of the system dramatically...
> actually any of the solutions/hacks which have been mentiond will only
> complicate.
Yeah, everything is more complicated than "copy to deploy dir". But then
people
>
>
>I don't think so. Implement one or the other but supporting both is
>going to be a nightmare from a maintenance standpoint. Imagine a user
>using the numbered order in a directory configuration. *shiver*
>
So, my point was to fix the system such that neither is needed for
deployment to func
>
>
>this is great, this is today in cvs, unless a certain someone removed this
>as well.
>
=P
>The problem is a painful russian doll structure.
>
>3- however there are 3 static directories deploy/first, deploy/second,
>deploy/third, actually i could call them
>deploy/deploy1, deploy/deploy2/dep
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Jason Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:53 PM
>>To: Bill Burke
>>Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; Jboss-Development @ Lists . Sourceforge
>>. Net
>>Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ordering proposal
32 matches
Mail list logo
