Re: [wildfly-dev] Deployment unit runtime-name - must it have a packaging type suffix?

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:43 AM, David Lloyd <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Brian Stansberry > <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > In practice the suffix is required. The deployment unit processors need > to > > know whether they are interested in the deployment, and in the end that > gets > > back to some DUP or other checking the suffix. The alternative would be > DUPs > > speculatively digging into the deployment, checking for deployment > > descriptors or annotations and the like and that would be more > expensive, > > likely buggy (e.g. false positives when some class in the classpath > includes > > an annotation not relevant to the deployment) and could mess up some use > > cases where we want to defer classloading. > > Another alternative is for an early processor to identify the type, > tag it on to the deployment context, and then we modify all other DUPs > to use that information. It seems pretty fragile to rely on the name, > particularly if that mechanism allows the "type" of deployment to > change in mid-deploy. > I agree; if it's not done that way now, it should be. My *impression* is the general pattern was the way you describe, i.e. for each significant type some early DUP determines it's a relevant type and attaches some stuff and then later ones rely on the attachments. But my impression could very well be wrong in some or many cases. I haven't done much DUP work beyond code reviews or simple fixes since the AS 7.0 days. But that early processor still needs a way to identify type and I think that comes down to the suffix.

-- Brian Stansberry Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer Red Hat _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev