The TB really only needs WS (annotations, jsr 181). This should actually
be core to ESB! It is not in the standalone right now to make it light,
and b/c we don't fully suppoer WS yet. But maybe we should do some
investigation to add this in for this release?
I think the TB readme says you need the "ejb3" profile, but I think that
had to do with the annotation support. Bill, we should be able to get WS
+ annotation support without EJB3 stuff right? It's be nice to get the
TB running out of the box.
--Kurt
Mark Little wrote:
We're OK for this release. We need to re-examine the TB anyway
after
MP goes out. But as you know, having everything run and work
out-of-the-box with zero config effort is what we've been striving for
for a while. I think we're not too bad.
Mark.
On 22 Mar 2007, at 10:16, Tom Fennelly wrote:
> The TB and the console currently require EJB3. Therefore, for this
> release we require the user to run both of these on a full AS install.
> For the TB, this means running against JBossMQ instead of JBM.
> Otherwise, the user has to install JBM on their AS, which is not
> something we should be requiring them to do. Additionally, it's a
> pain in the ass to do because it requires them to have Ant 1.7
> installed on their system. It's probably something they'd not want
> to do anyway - "I'm not screwing with my AS install just to get a
> sample working" :-)
>
> Getting the TB to work against both MQ and JBM is no big deal - I
> tested it with one of the quickstarts.
>
> So, my point is... while from a purest standpoint it might be "nicer"
> to not ship EJB3 (or whatever) as part of the esb-server, it
> certainly seems as though it might make life easier in a lot of
> situations - both for us and the user. Once we have a fancy
> installer we can make things optional. Just my opinion.
>
> T.
>
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On 21 Mar 2007, at 22:03, Kurt T Stam wrote:
>>
>>> Good question. And we will have this discussion for JBESB-5.0: "Even
>>> when everything is pluggable, What comes standard in it?". My
>>> feeling is
>>> that is should not come with JBESB by default as it is not core to
>>> SOA/ESB, but if we really should have some installer functionality we
>>> could make it easy to add them in, just like adding the ftp server,
>>> email server etc. I looked into using the izPack thing before, which
>>> looks pretty nice. We some customized version in JBossAS, which allows
>>> remote installs etc. I think that may be the way to go (after MP1).
>>>
>>> Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> Do we want to add EJB3 for busines_service? Probably add another
>>>> 4meg to the distro. But we would have Hibernate too. Eventually
>>>> somebody will write the Hibernate/JPA actions that Burr suggested
>>>> during the meeting in Westford.
>>>>
>>>> Kurt T Stam wrote:
>>>>> Starting work on more_action
>>>>>
>>>>> TODO
>>>>>
>>>>> business_service (this is ejb3, and will require deploying to the
>>>>> appserver)
>>>>> webservice_war1 (this requires a WS stack, which also requires the
>>>>> appserver).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Little wrote:
>>>>>> I thought we decided on today's SILC meeting to postpone the
jBPM
>>>>>> demo because of lack of time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21 Mar 2007, at 18:44, Kurt T Stam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK I think we should leave aggregator alone, as it has no
real
>>>>>>> deployment now. I'm starting on fun_cbr.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TODO:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> business_service
>>>>>>> webservice_war1
>>>>>>> jbpm_simple1
>>>>>>> more_action
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kurt T Stam wrote:
>>>>>>>> The work that needs be done is building an .esb archive
much like
>>>>>>>> the custom-action.jar but in addition it need to contain
>>>>>>>> a jboss-esb.xml in META-INF, and then changing the
deployToSAR
>>>>>>>> task to deploy, which should deploy this archive to the
>>>>>>>> server/default/deploy directory. If the sample contains
queue
>>>>>>>> definitions you may add this to the root of the .esb
archive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For most samples I'm leaving the "ant run"
task to start esb
>>>>>>>> through the bootstrapper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm taking static_router and simple_cbr right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Kurt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kurt T Stam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> TODO:
>>>>>>>>> aggregator
>>>>>>>>> business_service
>>>>>>>>> fun_cbr
>>>>>>>>> webservice_war1
>>>>>>>>> jbpm_simple1
>>>>>>>>> more_action
>>>>>>>>> simple_cbr
>>>>>>>>> static_router
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DONE:
>>>>>>>>> helloworld
>>>>>>>>> helloworld_action
>>>>>>>>> helloworld_db_registration
>>>>>>>>> helloworld_file_action
>>>>>>>>> helloworld_ftp_action
>>>>>>>>> helloworld_sql_action (I'm currently working on
this one)
>>>>>>>>> scripting_groovy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We want to port the samples to the new .esb
deployment right?
>>>>>>>>>> Divide
>>>>>>>>>> an conquer here? We each take a few?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> esb-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> esb-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:esb-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> esb-dev mailing list
>>>>> esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> esb-dev mailing list
>> esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev