Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [stp-pmc] Deployment Framework Doc


Hi Karl,

This is good to see.  I do have some comments.

1)  The first issue that I want to bring up is around the technology being used for the connections (i.e., using DTP).

Question
Have you reconciled how the server connections align with the WTP server tooling and project facet support?

Issue
This approach may be risky since it aligns STP on top of the Data Tools Platform for server integration; all of the existing J2EE types (*.ear, *.war, EJBs, etc) are aligned on the WTP Server API. The DTP and WTP API have some similarities (for instance DTP has a loosely defined concept of a "Technology Type" that is mapped to a "Server Type"; this is conceptually similar to the Project Facets in WTP). Following the current plan of action may make the J2EE integration story much more difficult; for instance, will we have to duplicate all of the J2EE Server integration on these new "DTP-flavored" "Server Connection Profiles" ?

I think re-using DTP for Database integration makes alot of sense; I don't think reusing any Server integration for any sort of ESB or Application Server makes sense. With the current deployment proposal we may have alot of work down the road; either by us (or someone else in STP) having to duplicate all of the J2EE server integration OR by STP having to port everything over from their DTP Connection Profile scheme to the WTP Project Facets. Either way, it's not a good story.

In addition, the usability story may not be ideal if we go with DTP as existing J2EE developers who use WTP (or WTP based products) will be used to a particular way of creating application server artifacts and associating those with application servers. Existing WTP users who pick up STP will have to follow a different path (via the Database Server configuration wizards) in order to create ESB or SCA deployable projects.

This proposal *builds* on the DTP Connection Profile scheme; which means that STP will be building and supporting yet another server integration/deployment story with this proposal. Clearly WTP is the platform for Application Server integration; the API is there, tested, and for better or worse it is the standard.

2) I don't see a connection between the definition of a "Package" and the core model ModuleComponent.

Question:
Is there a scenario that shows how a Module is constructed, assembled into a Subsystem, and then deployed?  

Your PackageProfile and Package must be closely linked with the implementations used for ModuleComponents (hopefully this will change to simply Component) defined within a Subsystem.  It is then the Subsystem that you want to deploy and create Packages for each implementation defined by the ModuleComponents.
I would like to see the scenario that ties the construction and deployment efforts together so there is a seamless story and vision that we are presenting.

3)  On slide 10 you indicate that there will be a Deployment File editor.

Question:
Will this editor allow for the definition of configuration elements on the application servers which are in support of the packages being deployed (e.g.., data sources)?

Regards,
Dan

Back to the top