Re: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Wednesday 11am - 12pm EDT)

["Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anyone?

> I could unfortunately not make it to this call (vacation keeping me offline at bad times).
>
> Will there be a resume of it somewhere?
>
> /max
>
>
>
>> Hi Naci,
>>
>> Phone details are listed below in this thread
>>
>> 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:
>> "Naci Dai" <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To:
>> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
>> <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date:
>> 07/15/2008 11:49 AM
>> Subject:
>> Re: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Wednesday 11am - 12pm EDT)
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> What are the coordinates of the meeting?
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Chuck Bridgham <cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wtp-dev mailing list
>> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/