Hong Zhang wrote on 10/02/09 06:38:
> Hi, Bill
>> The spec may be overstating things here, or you may be misinterpreting
>> them. The intent was not to prevent deployment tools from being to
>> specify the name at deployment time, overriding the default or app-specified
>> name. I would expect the --name argument to specify the application name.
>>
>> Let me reword the spec to make it clear that deployment tools are allowed
>> to do this.
Rereading the spec, I think this is pretty clear in the application case,
but maybe not quite as clear in the standalone module case. Were you
treating the two cases differently?
> Thanks for the clarification. I will make the changes to not
> differentiate application registration name and EE 6 application name.
>
> For a related part of the spec:
> =====================
> The deployment tool must ensure that the application name is unique in
> the application server instance. If the name is not unique, the
> deployment tool may automatically choose a unique name or allow the
> Deployer to choose a unique name, but must not fail the deployment. This
> ensures that existing applications continue to be deployable.
> ====================
>
> For the cases where the user does not specify --name, we will reassign
> another (unique) name to the application.
> But for the case where user explicitly specifies a --name option and the
> name is in conflict with another name, what should be the expected
> behavior?
Since the ability to specify a name in the deployment tool is a product
specific feature not defined by the spec, we can do whatever we want.
> I think we should still fail the deployment. If user specifies a name
> explicitly, most likely they will depend on this name and it's not good
> to just reassign a different name behind the scene. The error message of
> the failed deployment would say something like "Application with name
> XXX is already registered. Please pick a different name if this is a new
> deployment. And please specify the force option if this is a
> redeployment of the same application". I think this behavior is spec
> compatible as this "allow the Deployer to choose a unique name". And
> this behavior is more compatible with the behavior we currently have
> (fail the deployment and ask user to use force option to redeploy
> application). Please let me know what you think.
I agree.