If I were a product owner, I would worry more about compatibility than
spec compliance. Anyway, that's a perspective difference I suppose. As a
user, I prefer #2 for the simple reason that my application is already
fine with the old visibility mode, why switch to a new mode for an
existing app. If I am writing a new app, I will certainly worry about
portability and hence I like the default being new mode.
BTW, should we make this an upgrade option? In any case, I suggest we
make this configurable and then we can just decide what is the default
value based on feedback.
Finally, on a second thought, I think we can rename the deploy option
from "jarVisibility" to something like "compatibility" so that we can
use the same flag any other compatibility issues. Then, we don't need
yet another option when move to next version. We can just have
--compatibility=v3 while running in v3++.
What do people think?
Thanks,
Sahoo
Jerome Dochez wrote:
> this does pose a number of significant compatibility issues. For
> instance, take an upgrade scenario, where applications (using that
> behavior) were deployed successfully will not be able to be upgraded
> to V3 without requiring the usage of the flag.
>
> So we seem to be stuck between two equally bad choices :
> 1. we don't run the upgrade redeployment with the flag and
> applications that were not flagged as using a deprecated or incorrect
> feature in V1/V2 will fail to be upgraded correctly.
> 2. we run with the flag which mean that we automatically upgrade and
> run the already deployed applications in an incompatible mode.
>
> Even in normal re-deployment scenarios, applications will fail to
> redeploy with confusing errors (class not found exceptions most
> likely) while they deployed without an itch in v2. We seem to be
> breaking basic binary compatibility.
>
> To come back to upgrade, as a product owner, I prefer 1), spec writers
> will prefer 2), users will be confused anyhow :)
> votes ?
>
> jerome
>
> On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>
>> Roberto (and Sahoo) are exactly right.
>>
>> The version number in a deployment descriptor does *not* mean "this is
>> the version of the platform I'm expecting". It only means "this is the
>> version of the data file format you're about to read". Changing the
>> behavior of the platform based on the data file format is a mistake.
>> (Sadly, it's a mistake we've made a few times, but not one we should
>> keep making.)
>>
>> Ideally, the CTS would test that the behavior is correct independent
>> of the deployment descriptor version number.
>>
>> Using a deployment property to explicitly override the normal visibility
>> rules is allowed by the spec in this case, and is an appropriate
>> solution.
>> Providing a way to set this property in a product-specific deployment
>> descriptor would also be acceptable.
>>
>>
>> Roberto Chinnici wrote on 08/18/09 11:24:
>>> Typically we don't base container behavior on the version of the
>>> deployment descriptor present in an app or module.
>>> It seems to me that the "EE 6 restrictions" should be honored
>>> regardless of the descriptor version.
>>> The property in (3) could then be used to override the restrictions
>>> for apps that either don't have a descriptor or have an EE 5 one.
>>> --Roberto
>>> Tim Quinn wrote:
>>>> On the arch mailing list this past spring we started this
>>>> discussion but never closed on it. I followed up with a message on
>>>> that list on Aug. 7 but heard no response so I am moving the
>>>> discussion to this list and proposing a path forward that was
>>>> talked about in this week's v3 engineering meeting.
>>>>
>>>> The Java EE 6 platform spec imposes stricter requirements than EE 5
>>>> on what JARs are to be visible to the various submodules of an
>>>> application. Sections EE 8.3.1 (web), 8.3.2 (EJB), and 8.3.3 (app
>>>> client) in particular list the JARs that submodules must, may, and
>>>> must not have access to.
>>>> In particular, and of particular interest to me, the spec mandates
>>>> that app clients must not have access to EJB JARs or other JARs in
>>>> the EAR unless references using the standard Java SE mechanisms
>>>> (extensions, for example) or the EE library-directory mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> In GlassFish v2 and earlier, in addition to these JARs app clients
>>>> had access to EJB JARs and any JAR at the top-level of the EAR.
>>>> (This feature predated the Java EE 5 library-directory feature for
>>>> EARs.)
>>>>
>>>> The proposal from today's engineering meeting is this:
>>>>
>>>> 1. GlassFish v3 will inspect the schema version referenced in the
>>>> application.xml (if present). If the schema is for EE 6 then
>>>> GlassFish v3 will honor the EE 6 restrictions. If the schema is
>>>> for EE 5 or earlier then GlassFish v3 will behave as GlassFish v2.
>>>>
>>>> 2. GlassFish v3 will treat an application with no descriptor as an
>>>> EE 6 app and will enforce the EE 6 restrictions.
>>>> 3. Users might have existing apps which depend on the v2 behavior
>>>> and which do not have descriptors. To handle this case the deploy
>>>> command will support a property that overrides the schema version
>>>> (whether explicit as in #1 or defaulted as in #2).
>>>> We did not discuss how to name this property. Some options:
>>>>
>>>> deploy ... --property jarVisibility=javaee5 (or javaee6)
>>>> [referring to the EE spec version]
>>>>
>>>> deploy ... --property jarVisibility=v2 (or v3) [referring to the
>>>> GlassFish version]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because part of the solution is to examine the schema version in
>>>> application.xml (which is related to the Java EE version) it might
>>>> be clearer to have the property refer to the EE version also.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to this message with feedback, concerns, questions,
>>>> etc. Ideally we would take care of this issue this week before the
>>>> soft code freeze (next Monday).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> - Tim
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>