Binod's Proposal for Externally Managed Entity in Domain.xml <pre>
>>> I'd still like to understand... what is it that allows the app server to
>>> know that a war file that's deployed as part of an ear file shouldn't be
>>> individually undeployed (for example)?
>>
>>
>>
>> we already don't support such partial un-deployment. I thought the issue was that the .ear file is part of the JBI
composite application (some part of it known to our containers packaged in a .ear file, some part known to the JBI
container). The part known to our containers should not be un-deployable by our tools (since we know nothing of JBI, it
would be a partial undeploy) but by the JBI ones to ensure consistency (un-deployment of the .ear and the jbi part).
>
>
Thats almost everything. The only other reason is that if you have servicemix deployed on top of
appserver, then also, the new feature being proposed should work. Basically , as per JBI spec, only the deployment of service unit between the service engine and JBI
is defined. How a service assembly (which contain many SUs to different engines)
gets deployed is internal to the JBI runtime. That integration can be done in a proprietory way
with OpenESB, but not with other JBI implementations. >>
>>> An ear file is a "composite app"
>>> of sorts. Can we not generalize that mechanism to handle JBI composite
>>> apps?
>>
>>
>>
>> I want to have generic deployment facility in 9.1 where we could have addons or modules being capable of deploying
new application types (like a .sar file). Such a facility would provide a generic mechanism. Unfortunately, Binod felt
that he cannot wait for it to progress with the JBI integration.
>
>
Last time, when we discussed the deployment framework, I did not clearly understand that
it will be done for 9.1 itself. I thought it is being planned for 9.2. In any case, the reason why we did not want to use the deployment framework
for 9.1 is because we wanted to limit the scope of JBI integration work
for 9.1. On phase 1 of the integration for 9.1, we are targetting only a
limited scoped GUI integration, CLI integration, Addons for EE and JBI clustering. >
> Is this proposed DTD change not for 9.1? It is for 9.1 >
> If we're going to integrate JBI with the app server, as I thought we
> agreed, why can't we make the app server know about JBI composite apps
> in the same way it knows about Java EE composite apps? The generic
> mechanism you described above would seem to be sufficient as well. A complete integration as you propose is a lot of work and will only
be proprietory for OpenESB runtime or for someone who use the deployment
framework. The DTD change being proposed is a generic mechanism for any JBI (even perhaps
SCA) implementations and I thought it is better to do it anyway.
|
