[jboss-user] [JBoss Microcontainer Development POJO Server] - Implementing a non-flat deployment for Weld Integration

[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&containerType=14&container=2116]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-user/attachments/20100604/f8a5aa6d/attachment.html