On May 19, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Jason Lee wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Lloyd L Chambers
> <Lloyd.Chambers_at_sun.com> wrote:
>> I think it would be better to reject deployments that are of a
>> different
>> type; eg replacing 'war' with 'ear'. This is not a common case, so
>> it's
>> likely to be a unintentional mistake. Better to have the user
>> undeploy the
>> 'war', the deploy the 'ear'.
>
> I agree. I'd hate to be the maintainer of foo.war and start getting
> support calls on my broken app, only to find out that another
> developer/admin deployed foo.ear and silently replaced my app. In an
> ideal world, there would be organizational controls in place to help
> mitigate that kind of scenario, but we're not always in such a world.
> :)
right, so this is exactly what we are planning to do by default and as
long as the --force = true (or redeploy) is not used. So it takes an
obvious step like specifying the --force=true or use the redeploy
command to override the foo.war with a foo.ear, I think it should be
enough right ?
I am not sure that changing an obvious step like using --force=true
(or redeploy command) into a undeploy/deploy cycle is an added security.
>
>
> --
> Jason Lee, SCJP
> Software Architect -- Objectstream, Inc.
> Mojarra and Mojarra Scales Dev Team
> https://mojarra.dev.java.net
> https://scales.dev.java.net
> http://blogs.steeplesoft.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>