On 27 Jul 2009, at 15:34, Denis Forveille wrote:
I understand the concept, but it is quite confusing for the end
- There is a "booking" sample that is dedicated to JBoss. Fine. I
will not change/commit anything there. (The readme shoud state that
this sample is taylored for JBoss and if the user as another AS it
should look at the je55/booking sample instead
Agreed, can you add this?
- there is a jee5/booking sample which is supposed to be AS
"agnostic", but in fact it's not
(eg. the build process included specific JBoss libs,
there are specific lines for OC4J at various places etc..)
Sure, if you look at the readme, you'll see that it tells you to
uncomment certain lines to add dependencies needed by other app
servers. At the end of the day, no app server can run an app
- the jpa sample took another approach, ie a resource-per-AS
directoy + abuild file per AS...
On your advice, I could describe what to do to get the
booking/"agnostic-like" app to build and run on WAS, but IMHO as an
end user discovering seam, it is much easier and faster to run a
script that builds the ear file ready-to-be deployed and then
inspect what's in the ear to mimic/adapt their own projects.
Yes, I personally prefer this approach.
What do others think?
If not, i would have to describe the content of two files for the
user to create by hand (copy/paste from the PDF which is tedious and
error prone) and to describe the changes in half a dozen files the
user haas to change by hand (build.xml, persistence.xml etc,
component.xml, web.xml etc...) and also that the content of some
files is not optimal for WAS (eg the ejb-ref in ejb-jar.xml is not
necessary for WAS depending on how you configure JNDI for seam
etc.., nor the ones in web.xml etc....-or i could just say "remove
those lines-). The procedure will be a list of "add this line to
that file", "remove those set of lines from those files" etc...
Well, I would suggest including instructions for getting it working
with minimal changes in the readme. You can add a comment to the
specifc file like <!-- Not required in WAS 7 -->, and write in the ref
guide that you don't need these (but they don't hurt) etc.
Also should I put the WAS specific lines in the files themself (has
it has been partially done for OC4J and GF) ? in this case the todo
list would be something like : "uncomment those lines" instead of
"add those lines" but we will still have the "remove those lines"
Exactly, that is the scheme.
As a compromise, maybe we could have a specific build.xml file per
AS (that's includes all the required lib per AS) and a place to put
artifact (files specific for an AS) that the end-user could copy
itself by hand at the right place before building...but that is very
close to have a full resource-websphere7 + build-websphere7.xml
Right, if we change, IMO it should be to the jpa scheme.
Another point, the je55/booking/build.xml is not up to date (missing
slf4j and still includes cglib, asm etc..) and the content of the
META-INF directory should be split in two: the thing that goes at
build time in the ear file and the files that goes into the ejb-
Ok, can you update this?