[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Wednesday 11am - 12pm EDT)
|
OK,
Sorry for the late notice - We are trying
to get most parties involved in the discussion, so I will move the meeting
to 11am EDT Wednesday (Tomorrow)
Tim - I know you will miss, but I'll
catch up with you later.
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:
| Tim deBoer <deboer@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
| To:
| "konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx"
<konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
| Cc:
| "General discussion of project-wide
or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| Date:
| 07/14/2008 12:04 PM
|
| Subject:
| RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion
(Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) |
I'm going to be out Wed/Thursday, and flying on Friday. Looks like we need
to have a meeting without some of us, or try next week.
Tim deBoer
Eclipse WTP PMC, RAD Release Architect and WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada
(905) 413-3503 (tieline 969)
deboer@xxxxxxxxxx
| From:
| "Konstantin Komissarchik"
<konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
| To:
| "General discussion of project-wide
or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| Date:
| 07/14/2008 11:00 AM
|
| Subject:
| RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion
(Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT) |
It turns out that tuesday morning doesn't work for me at all this week.
How about Wednesday morning instead?
Konstantin Komissarchik | Principal Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 425 201 1795 | Mobile: +1 206 898 0611
Oracle Eclipse Tooling
411 108th Ave NE, Suite 2100 | Bellevue, WA 98004
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:36 AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm
EDT)
I think this is now in conflict with the WTP PMC call where I attend.
Is it possible to make this call one hour later? It is not a problem for
me to stay one more hour in the office.
If the change is not possible for everybody, I will try to skip the PMC
call.
Greetings,
Kaloyan
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Chuck Bridgham
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:30 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT)
Sorry didn't get this out in time, so lets have it Tuesday same time (11am
EDT)
Java EE tools discussion.
Topics: Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
Planning...
DIAL-IN NUMBERS & PASSCODES:
US/Canada Toll Free: 877-421-0030
International call-in: http://wiki.eclipse.org/images/f/f6/WTP_status_phone_access.pdf
Participant Passcode: 631004
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:
| Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM
|
| To:
| "General discussion of project-wide
or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| Cc:
| konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx,
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Date:
| 07/10/2008 01:35 PM
|
| Subject:
| RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in
EAR. Opinions? |
Yes sorry - I can do it tomorrow or Monday.
Any preference?
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:
| <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
| Date:
| 07/10/2008 01:24 PM
|
| Subject:
| 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
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:17 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.; Chuck
Bridgham
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
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
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:21 AM
To: Chuck Bridgham
Cc: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
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
From: Chuck Bridgham [mailto:cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:58 PM
To: Raev, Kaloyan
Cc: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
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
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
