[jbosstools-dev] How old is ESB project?

[Rob Stryker]

ProjectDeployable makes you do all the work yourself, and we haven't
done that properly yet.
ComponentDeployable and J2EEFlexProjDeployable are the broken ones that
are very complicated and include very very weird logic.

We don't want to use any of these. We want to make our own which is
clean and good! Not copy these broken ones from WTP!

Denny Xu wrote:
> Rob Stryker wrote:
>   
>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Rob - this specific feature were spec'ed out to be so it worked as WTP 
>>> does it so we would be sure it would work (equally bad/well). If that 
>>> was not done then its up to the dev(s) working on it to speak up and 
>>> say "heeey! This won't work!". That have happend on occasion and then 
>>> we have pulled it from a release. If you think stuff is missing, then 
>>> speak up - but be specific (as you are in this email)
>>>     
>>>       
>> We cloned the WTP structure but never completed a module factory for any 
>> of our projects yet, at least not a real one. We can't extend their jee 
>> module factories because they're way complex and many parts don't apply 
>> to us.  Fact is we *can't* use their module factories as their module 
>> factories simply refuse to turn our projects into modules. Basically, 
>> our ESB project has had a tiny shell of a module factory and our BPEL 
>> one is just really really weird.
>>
>> It doesn't have to do with the structure, either. It's just that their 
>> module factories check specifically for JEE facets and refuse to handle 
>> projects that are not JEE projects.
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> you are saying remove the old line and add in the new one! Will both 
>>> lines work in WTP today ?
>>>     
>>>       
>> Yes I'm saying remove the old line and add the new one in the ESB 
>> project. However, today, none of our module factories even look at the 
>> virtual component model. It's basically 100% irrelevent. The BPEL 
>> project is not a modulecore project, and the ESB project's module 
>> factory 100% ignores the virtual component and doesn't traverse it 
>> pretty much at all.
>>   
>>     
>>> i.e. is it just a matter of changing the new XYZ wizard and then the 
>>> new projects will be better and the old one continues to work ?
>>>     
>>>       
>> What I'm trying to say here is that, the current ones (module factories) 
>> *doesnt* work ;)  It basically 100% ignore the component xml file or 
>> uses it 100% incorrectly. For example, the current esb module factory 
>> checks for one (ONLY ONE) wb-resource mapping tag. If it finds 2 
>> (because, perhaps, the user wants 2), the code simply ignores the second 
>> mapping, and takes the first.
>>   
>>     
> Why ignore the component xml file means doesn't work, in practice, the
> component.xml file
> is impossible for users to edit it manually, you are expert ;-) , you
> know about the virtual component
> model, but most of users don't know and what it is for.
> I admit that it really is a bug for only handling one wb-resource
> mapping, I appreciate if you can
> create a jira or let me know when you find a bug or something doesn't work.
>   
>> Then, rather than traversing that IVirtualFolder, the factory gets the 
>> underlying IContainer object, and just scans that folder... completely 
>> ignoring the point of using the virtual component model.
>>   
>>     
> I have not investigated WTP code deep enough so I really don't find any
> guides that told me
> I must use Virtual Component to look for all related resources in module
> factory, if you are familiar
> with it, you can speak up or create a jira, rather than so easy to be
> annoyed ;-) .
>
> I tried to use ComponentDeployable as ESB module delegate, so far, it
> works fine, it might work like
> what you said, using virtual component to get which resources will be
> deployed, not sure if it would
> absolutely work for ESB deployment since I can't read all its code, I
> will do some more tests.
> If we change it to use ComponentDeployable as module delegate, the old
> component xml file doesn't
> work, so we have think about support of old esb project.
>
> Denny
>   
>>   
>>     
>>> Or are you saying lets stop supporting the old lines in 
>>> components.xml, meaning our projects won't work with any 
>>> modulefactories/server adapters than ours ?
>>>     
>>>       
>> First and foremost, we can't use WTP's module factories. Their factories 
>> refuse to look at our project bc we're not JEE projects.
>> Secondly, the module factory is what takes a project (or other module) 
>> and turns it into the servertools API so server adapters can consume it 
>> and publish it. I'm not suggesting making our projects unconsumable. All 
>> server types who want to will be able to consume what we give them. That 
>> will not change.
>>
>> I'd also like to note that I am not suggesting changing dynamic web 
>> projects or ejb projects at this time. I am talking only about our 
>> project types for which we control the module factory. If we control the 
>> mod-factory, and we control the project, we can decide how we want to 
>> use our components.xml file. But I am also not suggesting any radical 
>> changes here.
>>
>> What I am suggesting is to change how we interpret the "old lines".  If 
>> a components.xml file says map Project/src  to WEB-INF/classes, I'm 
>> suggesting we interpret that 100% literally... and we put .java files 
>> inside their WEB-INF/classes folder.
>>
>> What this means, though, is that old projects which map Project/src to 
>> WEB-INF/classes (rather than mapping Project/bin to WEB-INF/classes) 
>> would need to be changed, either automatically by us or by the user 
>> themselves in that new mapping UI i've been making. It also means we'd 
>> need to make the default mapping be from bin rather than from src, if 
>> that makes sense.
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> i.e. as far as I understand what you are suggesting doesn't break 
>>> anything (just changes how new projects are defined), but you write as 
>>> if it will break stuff ?
>>>     
>>>       
>> Yes... what would break is old projects would need to make a quick 
>> change and stop mapping src to / and change it to mapping bin to /. 
>> Otherwise they'll end up with java files (src) in their .esb output file 
>> root rather than .class files. Make sense? We'd still need to fix their 
>> project for them, or them for themselves, but the fix would be really 
>> really easy in the mapping UI. Just remove the src mapping and add the 
>> bin mapping.
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>   
>>     
>
>