+1000000
I've been burned too many times by that last minute "easy" fix/feature :-)
Mark Little wrote:
Given past experience, let's not try to shoe-horn in anything
that
seems easy at the last minute ;-)
Mark.
On 22 Mar 2007, at 15:21, Tom Fennelly wrote:
> For now, I'm working on getting it working via the AS. If we get a
> chance to try out adding WS to the standalone, great, otherwise we
> should still have it working via the AS.
>
> T.
>
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Mar 2007, at 12:36, Kurt T Stam wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> There's a task that was assigned to Daniel for this for post MP.
>> However, I'm uncomfortable about adding this at this stage, so let's
>> leave it until later.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>