Re: [jboss-user] [JBoss Microcontainer Development POJO Server] - Implementing a non-flat deployment for Weld Integration
by Flavia Rainone
Flavia Rainone [http://community.jboss.org/people/flavia.rainone%40jboss.com] replied to the discussion
"Implementing a non-flat deployment for Weld Integration"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/546199#546199
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Flavia Rainone wrote:
> Finally, the tests are very poor. I just ported the already existing ones to test the new deployers. So writing real tests is what I'll be doing next, and I'm sure I have quite a few bugs to catch ;-)
I stumbled upon some issue here.
The problem is located in WeldFilesDeployer:
Iterable<VirtualFile> classpaths = getClassPaths(unit);
for (VirtualFile cp : classpaths)
{
VirtualFile wbXml = cp.getChild("META-INF/beans.xml");
if (wbXml.exists())
{
// add url
wbFiles.add(wbXml);
// add classes
cpFiles.add(cp);
}
}
This deployer deploys the cpFiles of the current unit only if it has the META-INF/beans.xml file.
The problem with this is that this results in an ArchiveInfo without any classes in it if we deploy an ejb-jar without META-INF/beans.xml. In the future, if Weld request for a BDA associated with the ejb-jar by calling Deployment.loadBeanDeploymentArchive, it will get a BDA that has no classes in it.
So, I tried to "fix" it:
Iterable<VirtualFile> classpaths = getClassPaths(unit);
for (VirtualFile cp : classpaths)
{
VirtualFile wbXml = cp.getChild("META-INF/beans.xml");
if (wbXml.exists())
{
// add url
wbFiles.add(wbXml);
}
// add classes
cpFiles.add(cp);
}
This resulted in a series of test failures. All related with the criteria that we use to decide whether to put a class in a BDA.
Overall, these are the scenarios that are broken:
- if one or more lib jars in an ear happen to not have a META-INF/beans.xml file, the lib classes were not part of the BDA that represents the ear (note that currently I'm creating a BDA for every classLoader. So, for an ear, there is a single BDA that contains all the info regarding lib jars and ejb-jars in it).
- if one ore more ejb-jars in an ear happen to not have a META-INF/beans.xml file, the classes of those non-CDI ejb-jars were not part of the resulting BDA
- if in a war that contains a WEB-INF/beans.xml we have one ore more lib jars that don't have a META-INF/beans.xml, the classes of those libs are not part of the resulting BDA (we currently create a single BDA for every war; this BDA represents both the classes and the libs of the war)
- if, in a war that lacks a WEB-INF/beans.xml, we have one ore more lib jars that have the META-INF/beans.xml, the classes of the war (WEB-INF/classes) are not part of the resulting BDA.
In all the scenarios I described, the classes that were not part of the resulting BDA became part of the BDA with my "fix".
Notice that, interestingly, in the way things are implemented today, if you pass one of the missing classes as a parameter to a Deployment.loadBeanDeploymentArchive, my implementation will return the requested BDA correctly, but still the BDA wil lack the requested class!
So, we clearly have made some mistaken assumption here:
- either the classes that were not part of the BDAs in the previously described scenarios were supposed to be in the BDA and I fixed the bug. Now, all I have left to do is fixing the tests as well.
- or we should not create a BDA for every ClassLoader. We should be creating a BDA for every classpath entry (i.e., there should be a BDA for the WEB-INF/classes war; and another BDA for every lib in the war; simillarly, there should be a BDA for every distinct jar in the ear archive). As a result, we have one ore more BDAs that can see each other simultaneously because they all happen to belong to the same ClassLoader. Also, in a single AS instace, we will have a larger number of BDAs when compared to my current implementation.
Which way should I go now?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/546199#546199]
Start a new discussion in JBoss Microcontainer Development POJO Server at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
16 years
Re: [jboss-user] [JBoss Microcontainer Development POJO Server] - Implementing a non-flat deployment for Weld Integration
by Pete Muir
Pete Muir [http://community.jboss.org/people/petemuir] replied to the discussion
"Implementing a non-flat deployment for Weld Integration"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/546189#546189
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Flavia Rainone wrote:
>
> > Pete Muir wrote:
> >
> > > I've been thinking about correctness all this time. If somebody places a jar in lib and expects that the beans are created upfront when AS starts, then this would not work using your approach.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok, I think we've got crossed wires. You can't deploy a library jar in some "context" outside a deployment. The beans don't get created or anything outside the context of a deployment.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Another way to think of it is that a library in default/lib with a beans.xml in it works just like a library in WEB-INF/lib.
> >
> >
> >
>
> In that case, why the lazy approach wouldn't work?
>
>
>
> From what I can see, if it works just like a library in WEB-INF/lib, it means that we will need to provide a BDA for a lib jar only when Weld requests for one through loadBeanDeploymentArchive, right?
>
>
>
> Or, if I'm wrong, do you mean that a BDA for every lib jar with a META-INF/beans.xml should be provided as direct or indirect result of BeanDeploymentArchive.getBeanDeploymentArchives() for every BDA in a Deployment?
>
> Explaining better, given commos/lib/mylib.jar with the following structure:
>
> mylib.jar
>
> |_
>
> META-INF/beans.xml
>
> |_
>
> whatever classes in here
>
>
>
> Say we create a BDA upfront, let's call it MY_LIB_BDA, and add this BDA to DefalutDomain Classpath. No deployment is created upfront.
>
>
>
> Now, say my-ejb.jar with a META-INF/beans.xml file is deployed to deploy dir. We create a Deployment for it, of course, and we create a BDA for it as well. This BDA, called MY_EJB_BDA, belongs to Default Domain Classpath. So, when Weld invokes MY_EJB_BDA.getBDAs(), it should , directly on indirectly (i.e., by walking on the BDA graph structure), reach MY_LIB_BDA?
>
>
>
> This is different from the lazy approach because, with this second approach, you are not required to call loadBeanDeploymentArchive in order to obtain MY_LIB_BDA. A simple BeanDeploymentArchive.getBeanDeploymentArchives will get you there.
>
>
>
> Is that what Weld requires us to do?
Yes. If there is an accessible (i.e. classes can be loaded from it) library jar with META-INF/beans.xml, then Weld expects you to return it as part of the BDA graph of the Deployment.
The loadBeanDeploymentArchive method solely exists for the case that someone adds a bean based on a class which isn't present in the BDA graph via a CDI lifecycle listener. For every bean defined in such a way, Weld calls loadBeanDeploymentArchive, expecting the correct BDA to be returned.
IOW this is a kinda a two stage process - firstly the BDAs which are defined declaratively (META-INF/beans.xml) are handed to Weld, and then BDAs which are defined programatically are loaded by Weld (via loadBeanDeploymentArchive).
> Because the Java EE/CDI specs require it.
>
> BTW, I've read the spec sometime ago. Of course I don't remember all the details so, if you think rereading some specific part of it might be useful, let me know.
I simply meant that the reason we have to load library jars as BDAs is because the spec says so ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/546189#546189]
Start a new discussion in JBoss Microcontainer Development POJO Server at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
16 years