[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
|
I think we have lost the thread here...
Chuck, what is the soonest day you can organize a telecon
in the 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM PDT timeslot?
Greetings,
Kaloyan
Next week works ok for me and I suppose I can do 8 AM
PDT if that's absolutely the only time that makes sense for everyone
else.
- Konstantin
Hi Chuck,
Does this mean you can organize the telecon any day after
Thursday from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM PDT?
Greetings,
Kaloyan
Hi, This Thursday doesn't work for me, but I can meet next
week, any day at the same time mentioned.
Thanks - Chuck
Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead
IBM
Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx Ph:
919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
| From:
| "Raev, Kaloyan"
<kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx>
|
| To:
| Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| Date:
| 07/02/2008 08:13 AM
|
| Subject:
| RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR.
Opinions? |
It really seems we need a phone
call... Chuck, I remember we had phone calls when discussing JEE5 more than year
ago. Is it possible to use the same teleconference for this topic?
As far as I remember the time slot was on
Thursday, 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM PDT. Greetings, Kaloyan
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
Sent: Tuesday, July 01,
2008 7:13 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural
issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR.
Opinions?
I
still haven't heard a viable argument for why this restriction is necessary.
Allowing ear facet version changes does not completely address the scenario that
I presented. In a large and complicated app, the user may not be ready to
upgrade the ear spec level. That may be quite an undertaking. Regarding the
relationship between facet version and descriptor schema, anything other than
strict 1-to-1 relationship can lead to all sorts of problems in both WTP and
adopter code. It should be considered an error case. Sounds like we need a phone
call. - Konstantin
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:41
AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural
issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR.
Opinions?
Tim, Konstantin, thank you for your comments. I agree with Tim
that the facet version of the EAR should be considered as the max spec level of
the modules that this EAR can include. This sounds nice in terms of validation.
On
the other side I agree with the scenario given by Konstantin. At the moment the
users really cannot upgrade an existing EAR 1.4 to EAR 5 and add EE 5 modules to
it. So, the solution in this situation I see to be that we allow upgrading
the facet version of EAR projects. Then we can do a strict validation/filtering
based on the EAR's facet version and at the same time have the Konstantin's
scenario possible. How hard would it be to introduce this? I even see two
possible option: 1)
upgrading EAR facet version without upgrading the DD (should be quite
simple) 2) upgrading EAR
facet version and upgrading the DD
Greetings, Kaloyan
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
Sent: Friday, June 27,
2008 7:14 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural
issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR.
Opinions?
Here are my views on the subject...
Given that the spec is ambiguous, the
question that should be asked is "is there at least one runtime that supports
this scenario"? If the answer is yes for at least one runtime, then in order to
follow WTP charter and not preclude proper integration of that runtime with WTP,
we have to take a more allowing stance on this. There is indeed at least one
runtime that has no problem with this scenario. I just had someone verify that
WLS does in fact support it. The situation is made worse by the fact that we
still have no support for spec level changes, so users can get stuck. The
following scenario is not that uncommon:
1. User has an existing j2ee 1.4
app. 2. User needs to add a new
module. 3. User wants to take
advantage of java ee 5 features in new code. We should not be
getting in the way of this scenario. If particular servers do not support this,
then server adapters for those servers can perform that validation and alert the
user. - Konstantin
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim deBoer
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:07
AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural
issues.
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR.
Opinions?
Hi
Kaloyan,
Thank
you for raising this issue. I agree we are inconsistent in parts, and although
we don't necessarily need to resolve all of the issues immediately we should at
least have a common definition of what is 'correct' and may eventually be
supported by WTP.
Among the IBM committers we generally agree with #2, but have made an
interesting distinction: the schema used by a DD is only a bottom boundary on
the spec level of the EAR or module. As an example, a '1.4' EAR that contains an
EJB 3.0 module is really just an EE 5 EAR (or EE 6.0 or ...) with an older DD.
Likewise, EJB 3.0 annotations within an EJB module is an indication that the EJB
is at least EE 5/EJB 3.0, even if the DD still points to the EJB 2.0
schema.
If DD
schemas and spec API usage are just a bottom boundary, it means that there is
nothing within the contents of an EAR or module that can precisely determine its
level. So how do we tell if it is valid for a user to add an EJB 3.0 module to
what currently looks like a 1.4 EAR? Was it really an EE 5 EAR all along, do
they want to uplevel the EAR, or is the user simply making a
mistake?
The
solution we came to is using facets. Facet versions allow the user to tell us
which spec level they expect an EAR/module to be at, and gives us something to
tool for and validate against. The versions are set on project creation or on
import based on what we initially find in the modules. >From there, the facet
version of an EAR determines the maximum spec level of modules that can be added
or which servers it can be run on, and validation can show errors for invalid
modules or if the DD points to a schema above the level of the
facet.
If you
agree with the original distinction (that true EAR 1.4s can't hold EJB 3
modules, but the schema used by the DD is only a bottom boundary on the spec
level), then I think you'll eventually come to the same conclusion we have.
Please feel free to let me know what you think and others can chime in, or we
can discuss on one of the WTP calls.
Thanks,
Tim
deBoer
deboer@xxxxxxxxxx
| From:
| "Raev, Kaloyan"
<kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx>
|
| To:
| "General discussion of project-wide or
architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| Date:
| 06/26/2008 09:04 AM
|
| Subject:
| [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR.
Opinions? |
Hello,
I want to bring
up again an issue that was discussed some time ago in
Bugzilla. It is about
mixing of spec levels of EAR and included modules.
There are two bugs
related:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=220929
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=229893
Everybody agree that EAR with spec level X could include modules
with
spec level X or lower. Example: EAR 5 can include EJB 2.1.
But there
is no consensus of opinion on EAR with spec level X to include
modules with
spec level higher than X. Example: EAR 1.4 to include EJB
3.0. There are two
contrary opinions:
1. EAR 1.4 can include EJB 3.0
2. EAR 1.4 cannot
include EJB 3.0.
The supporters of opinion 1 says that it is not
forbidden by the Java EE
spec.
The supporters of opinion 2 says that it
is (at least indirectly)
forbidden by the spec. This is because the contract
of the Java EE spec
says that a deployment module compliant with spec level X
must always be
able to deploy on an application server compliant with spec
level X. Now
let's look again at our example of EAR 1.4 including EJB 3.0.
EAR 1.4 is
a J2EE 1.4 deployment module and it is guaranteed by the spec that
it
will deploy on all J2EE 1.4 compliant servers. But if we try to
deploy
it on an J2EE 1.4 compliant app server, that is not at the same
time
Java EE 5 compliant, then our deployment will fail, because of
the
included EJB 3.0 module (which is Java EE 5 spec level).
At the
moment there is an inconsistency in several dialogs in WTP
regarding this
issue. For example the Java EE Module Dependencies
property page of an EAR
1.4 project filters Java EE 5 modules for
selection, while at the same time
the project creation wizard allows a
EJB 3.0 project to be added to an
existing EAR 1.4 project.
I suggest that we discuss this problem and
hope we will have an
agreement for WTP 3.0.1. I invite all application server
vendors
represented in this mailing list to express their support for
either
opinion 1 or opinion 2.
Greetings,
Kaloyan Raev
Eclipse
WTP Committer
<http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/people/person.php?name=raev>
Senior Developer
NW C JS TOOLS JEE (BG)
SAP Labs
Bulgaria
T +359/2/9157-416
mailto:kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx
www.sap.com
P Save a tree -
please do not print this email unless you really need
to!
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing
list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
