I don't think we came to a conclusion in this discussion. The
discussion in this thread is potentially useful for many other modules
that provide cross-cutting functionalities.
Thanks,
Sahoo
Sahoo wrote:
> Kedar Mhaswade wrote:
>> Sahoo,
>>
>> Sahoo wrote:
>>> Jerome Dochez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From a size/embeddability considerations, if any of the above
>>>>> interfaces is
>>>>> deemed "unnecessary", then probably a "distribution" emerges at
>>>>> that point
>>>>> which excludes the artifacts of that particular interface. For
>>>>> example, we
>>>>> might want to build a webtier-light distribution that does not
>>>>> contain the
>>>>> GUI/AMX interfaces.
>>>> right so would not that call for separating those at the module
>>>> level ?
>>> I don't understand how separating the admin functionality of webtier
>>> to a single module like webtier-admin solves the aforementioned
>>> distribution problem. We would still distribute the same number of
>>> bytes, because the module contains both required and optional
>>> webtier admin functionality. Or, are we talking about the required
>>> part of webtier-admin to be part of webtier.jar where as the
>>> optional part being made available as one or more separate modules?
>>
>> As of now, at least for webtier, I feel all admin artifacts should be
>> made a part of webtier.jar alone. In general, I am not sure if different
>> admin interfaces/classes are general enough to be made into separate
>> HK2 modules (this is based on Module definition outlined by
>> http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=V3EngineersGuide
>>
>> So, in short, core admin facilities is one HK2 module and webtier
>> admin facilities are part of webtier module itself.
>>
>> Am I creating more confusion?
>>
> But you only mentioned about the possibility of a webtier-light
> distribution and not shipping some of the webtier admin artifacts as
> part of that distribution, didn't you? Can we support such a
> distribution with this kind of packaging? I hope we are *not*
> proposing to have different number of classes in the same module
> (same as in name and version being same) in different distributions.
> Different distributions for same version of GlassFish should differ
> only by number of modules, the same module in different distributions
> should have same content, otherwise it will be difficult to add new
> features to an installed system.
>
> Having said this, if we conclude that the admin functionality for a
> container can *not* be separated into required and optional modules,
> then your proposal of packaging admin classes as part of webtier.jar
> is almost as good as separating them into another module like
> webtier-admin.jar. I said almost because a separate module would
> theoritically allow us to upgrade only that module in an installed
> system, but I don't know how practical that is from a release
> engineering point of view. In that case, I prefer having just one module.
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>