Chuck, What are the coordinates of the meeting?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Chuck Bridgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, > > Sorry for the late notice - We are trying to get most parties involved in > the discussion, so I will move the meeting to 11am EDT Wednesday (Tomorrow) > Tim - I know you will miss, but I'll catch up with you later. > > Thanks - Chuck > > Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead > IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) > > > From: Tim deBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: " > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." < > wtp-dev@eclipse.org> Date: 07/14/2008 12:04 PM Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Java > EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) > ------------------------------ > > > > > I'm going to be out Wed/Thursday, and flying on Friday. Looks like we need > to have a meeting without some of us, or try next week. > > Tim deBoer > Eclipse WTP PMC, RAD Release Architect and WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada > (905) 413-3503 (tieline 969) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." < > wtp-dev@eclipse.org> Date: 07/14/2008 11:00 AM Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] > Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) > > ------------------------------ > > > > It turns out that tuesday morning doesn't work for me at all this week. How > about Wednesday morning instead? > > > [image: Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com/> > Konstantin Komissarchik | Principal Member of Technical Staff > Phone: +1 425 201 1795 | Mobile: +1 206 898 0611 > Oracle Eclipse Tooling > 411 108th Ave NE, Suite 2100 | Bellevue, WA 98004 > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Raev, Kaloyan* > Sent:* Monday, July 14, 2008 5:36 AM* > To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.* > Subject:* RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) > > I think this is now in conflict with the WTP PMC call where I attend. > > Is it possible to make this call one hour later? It is not a problem for me > to stay one more hour in the office. > If the change is not possible for everybody, I will try to skip the PMC > call. > > Greetings, > Kaloyan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Chuck Bridgham* > Sent:* Monday, July 14, 2008 2:30 PM* > To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.* > Subject:* [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) > > > Sorry didn't get this out in time, so lets have it Tuesday same time (11am > EDT) > > Java EE tools discussion. > > Topics: Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > Planning... > > > DIAL-IN NUMBERS & PASSCODES: > US/Canada Toll Free: 877-421-0030 > International call-in: * > http://wiki.eclipse.org/images/f/f6/WTP_status_phone_access.pdf*<http://wiki.eclipse.org/images/f/f6/WTP_status_phone_access.pdf> > Participant Passcode: 631004 > > Thanks - Chuck > > Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead > IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) > From: Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM To: "General discussion of > project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@eclipse.org> Cc: > [EMAIL PROTECTED], "General discussion of project-wide or > architectural issues." <wtp-dev@eclipse.org>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 07/10/2008 01:35 PM Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in > EAR. Opinions? > > > ------------------------------ > > > Yes sorry - I can do it tomorrow or Monday. > > Any preference? > > Thanks - Chuck > > Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead > IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) > > From: "Raev, Kaloyan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "General discussion of project-wide > or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@eclipse.org>, Chuck > Bridgham/Raleigh/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 07/10/2008 01:24 PM Subject: RE: > [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > > > ------------------------------ > > > > I think we have lost the thread here... > Chuck, what is the soonest day you can organize a telecon in the 8:00 AM > to 9:00 AM PDT timeslot? > > Greetings, > Kaloyan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Konstantin Komissarchik* > Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:17 PM* > To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.; Chuck > Bridgham* > Subject:* RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > > Next week works ok for me and I suppose I can do 8 AM PDT if that's > absolutely the only time that makes sense for everyone else. > > - Konstantin > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Raev, Kaloyan* > Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:21 AM* > To:* Chuck Bridgham* > Cc:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.* > Subject:* RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > > Hi Chuck, > > Does this mean you can organize the telecon any day after Thursday from > 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM PDT? > > Greetings, > Kaloyan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chuck Bridgham [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > * > Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:58 PM* > To:* Raev, Kaloyan* > Cc:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.* > Subject:* RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > > > Hi, > > This Thursday doesn't work for me, but I can meet next week, any day at the > same time mentioned. > > Thanks - Chuck > > Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead > IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) From: "Raev, Kaloyan" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/[EMAIL PROTECTED], "General > discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@eclipse.org> > Date: 07/02/2008 08:13 AM Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in > EAR. Opinions? > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > It really seems we need a phone call... > > Chuck, I remember we had phone calls when discussing JEE5 more than year > ago. Is it possible to use the same teleconference for this topic? > As far as I remember the time slot was on Thursday, 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM PDT. > > Greetings, > Kaloyan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Konstantin Komissarchik* > Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:13 PM* > To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.* > Subject:* RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > > I still haven't heard a viable argument for why this restriction is > necessary. Allowing ear facet version changes does not completely address > the scenario that I presented. In a large and complicated app, the user may > not be ready to upgrade the ear spec level. That may be quite an > undertaking. Regarding the relationship between facet version and descriptor > schema, anything other than strict 1-to-1 relationship can lead to all sorts > of problems in both WTP and adopter code. It should be considered an error > case. Sounds like we need a phone call. > > - Konstantin > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Raev, Kaloyan* > Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:41 AM* > To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.* > Subject:* RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > > Tim, Konstantin, thank you for your comments. > > I agree with Tim that the facet version of the EAR should be considered as > the max spec level of the modules that this EAR can include. This sounds > nice in terms of validation. > > On the other side I agree with the scenario given by Konstantin. At the > moment the users really cannot upgrade an existing EAR 1.4 to EAR 5 and add > EE 5 modules to it. > > So, the solution in this situation I see to be that we allow upgrading the > facet version of EAR projects. Then we can do a strict validation/filtering > based on the EAR's facet version and at the same time have the Konstantin's > scenario possible. How hard would it be to introduce this? I even see two > possible option: > 1) upgrading EAR facet version without upgrading the DD (should be quite > simple) > 2) upgrading EAR facet version and upgrading the DD > > Greetings, > Kaloyan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Konstantin Komissarchik* > Sent:* Friday, June 27, 2008 7:14 PM* > To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.* > Subject:* RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > > Here are my views on the subject... > > Given that the spec is ambiguous, the question that should be asked is "is > there at least one runtime that supports this scenario"? If the answer is > yes for at least one runtime, then in order to follow WTP charter and not > preclude proper integration of that runtime with WTP, we have to take a more > allowing stance on this. There is indeed at least one runtime that has no > problem with this scenario. I just had someone verify that WLS does in fact > support it. > > The situation is made worse by the fact that we still have no support for > spec level changes, so users can get stuck. The following scenario is not > that uncommon: > > 1. User has an existing j2ee 1.4 app. > 2. User needs to add a new module. > 3. User wants to take advantage of java ee 5 features in new code. > > We should not be getting in the way of this scenario. If particular servers > do not support this, then server adapters for those servers can perform that > validation and alert the user. > > - Konstantin > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > *On Behalf Of *Tim deBoer* > Sent:* Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:07 AM* > To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.* > Subject:* Re: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions? > > > Hi Kaloyan, > > Thank you for raising this issue. I agree we are inconsistent in parts, and > although we don't necessarily need to resolve all of the issues immediately > we should at least have a common definition of what is 'correct' and may > eventually be supported by WTP. > > Among the IBM committers we generally agree with #2, but have made an > interesting distinction: the schema used by a DD is only a bottom boundary > on the spec level of the EAR or module. As an example, a '1.4' EAR that > contains an EJB 3.0 module is really just an EE 5 EAR (or EE 6.0 or ...) > with an older DD. Likewise, EJB 3.0 annotations within an EJB module is an > indication that the EJB is at least EE 5/EJB 3.0, even if the DD still > points to the EJB 2.0 schema. > > If DD schemas and spec API usage are just a bottom boundary, it means that > there is nothing within the contents of an EAR or module that can precisely > determine its level. So how do we tell if it is valid for a user to add an > EJB 3.0 module to what currently looks like a 1.4 EAR? Was it really an EE 5 > EAR all along, do they want to uplevel the EAR, or is the user simply making > a mistake? > > The solution we came to is using facets. Facet versions allow the user to > tell us which spec level they expect an EAR/module to be at, and gives us > something to tool for and validate against. The versions are set on project > creation or on import based on what we initially find in the modules. >From > there, the facet version of an EAR determines the maximum spec level of > modules that can be added or which servers it can be run on, and validation > can show errors for invalid modules or if the DD points to a schema above > the level of the facet. > > If you agree with the original distinction (that true EAR 1.4s can't hold > EJB 3 modules, but the schema used by the DD is only a bottom boundary on > the spec level), then I think you'll eventually come to the same conclusion > we have. Please feel free to let me know what you think and others can chime > in, or we can discuss on one of the WTP calls. > > Thanks, > Tim deBoer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Raev, Kaloyan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "General > discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@eclipse.org> > Date: 06/26/2008 09:04 AM Subject: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. > Opinions? > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Hello, > > I want to bring up again an issue that was discussed some time ago in > Bugzilla. It is about mixing of spec levels of EAR and included modules. > There are two bugs related:* > **https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=220929*<https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=220929> > * > **https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=229893*<https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=229893> > > Everybody agree that EAR with spec level X could include modules with > spec level X or lower. Example: EAR 5 can include EJB 2.1. > But there is no consensus of opinion on EAR with spec level X to include > modules with spec level higher than X. Example: EAR 1.4 to include EJB > 3.0. There are two contrary opinions: > 1. EAR 1.4 can include EJB 3.0 > 2. EAR 1.4 cannot include EJB 3.0. > > The supporters of opinion 1 says that it is not forbidden by the Java EE > spec. > The supporters of opinion 2 says that it is (at least indirectly) > forbidden by the spec. This is because the contract of the Java EE spec > says that a deployment module compliant with spec level X must always be > able to deploy on an application server compliant with spec level X. Now > let's look again at our example of EAR 1.4 including EJB 3.0. EAR 1.4 is > a J2EE 1.4 deployment module and it is guaranteed by the spec that it > will deploy on all J2EE 1.4 compliant servers. But if we try to deploy > it on an J2EE 1.4 compliant app server, that is not at the same time > Java EE 5 compliant, then our deployment will fail, because of the > included EJB 3.0 module (which is Java EE 5 spec level). > > At the moment there is an inconsistency in several dialogs in WTP > regarding this issue. For example the Java EE Module Dependencies > property page of an EAR 1.4 project filters Java EE 5 modules for > selection, while at the same time the project creation wizard allows a > EJB 3.0 project to be added to an existing EAR 1.4 project. > > I suggest that we discuss this problem and hope we will have an > agreement for WTP 3.0.1. I invite all application server vendors > represented in this mailing list to express their support for either > opinion 1 or opinion 2. > > Greetings, > Kaloyan Raev > Eclipse WTP Committer > <*http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/people/person.php?name=raev*<http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/people/person.php?name=raev>> > > Senior Developer > NW C JS TOOLS JEE (BG) > SAP Labs Bulgaria > T +359/2/9157-416* > **mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* > **www.sap.com* <http://www.sap.com> > P Save a tree - please do not print this email unless you really need > to! > > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > **https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev*<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > **https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev*<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > **https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev*<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > wtp-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > wtp-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev > > -- Naci Dai - [EMAIL PROTECTED] eteration a.s. itu ari-1 25 maslak istanbul tr ph: +90 212 328 0825 - fax: +90 212 328 0521
<<image/gif>>
_______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list wtp-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
