[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFSDeploymentScanner questions

[scott.stark@jboss.org]

"adrian at jboss.org" wrote : "scott.stark at jboss.org" wrote : 
  |   | 2. The ordering of deployments based on suffix is largely useless with the current deployment framework that has any number of deployers operate on a deployment. Correct startup order is a function of deployers adding the correct dependency metadata to the kernel deployments they create. Any deployment package level dependency control would seem to be an aspect/deployer that used its own metadata to create place holder kernel objects (or used equivalents from jsr77) to introduce coarse grained dependencies. The question is, is this assement correct, and do we need such a coarse grained deployment aspect/deployer?
  |   | 
  | 
  | I'm not sure I understand this?
  | 
  | The deployments contain many pieces of metadata that are deployed
  | in an aspectized way. They still need an ordering, but based on the
  | metadata rather than the deployment suffix.
  | 
  | e.g. aop must be before classloading, classloading before
  | "instantiation", etc.
  | 
  | Other dependendencies (between services and entry points)
  | should be via the microcontainer. We are trying to remove
  | the implicit dependency of the suffix ordering and replace it
  | with a semi-implicit (i.e. added by deployer) dependency.
  | 
  | e.g. If an ejb uses another ejb/datasource then the
  | "enc/resource/reference" deployer adds this.
  | e.g.2. Trivially, the above also requires a  dependency on naming
  | e.g.3. A web deployment has a dependency on the web container
  | etc.
Right, this is what I'm saying. The previous notion of ordering the deployment contexts based on the deployment suffix has little meaning since the deployments get passed through the ordered list of deployers/aspects. Only if there are implicit dependencies like a legacy service looking up an ejb via jndi would there be meaning in having the sar depend on the target ejb jar. Such a dependency should an explicit deployment context level dependency rather than some deployment name based ordering.


View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3957015#3957015

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3957015