Re: [stp-pmc] Deployment Framework Doc

[Daniel Berg <danberg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

RE:  Connections and WTP
I think the STP deployment platform
needs to be flexible enough to support connections defined in WTP or DTP
or anywhere else for that matter.  I agree that WTP server technology
is not the only one STP should focus on.  STP is a "platform"
and as a good platform it needs to be flexible.  It should define
the API layer and the extension points.  Then we will show how WTP
server connections can integrate as well as DTP connections.  To STP
it is just a connection.  How that connection is implemented should
be orthogonal.



<<As would
we all - that's why we need the code in, from the SCA java  
inspector all
the way to some runtime.>>>

I don't see why having the code available
should block the creation of an overall scenario.  It would actually
be best to have a scenario (or a set of scenarios) that describes how the
STP platform and tools will function as a unit.

As for the POJO implementation we have
decided to not refactor the code to remove the dependencies to the other
platform within IBM because they are very close to having it ready to be
contributed.  We will contribute the POJO support with the supporting
framework is contributed.

Regards,
Dan

Oisin Hurley <ohurley@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: stp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/13/2006 03:44 PM

Please respond to
STP PMC list <stp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	STP PMC list <stp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [stp-pmc] Deployment Framework Doc

> 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.

Just a point here -- the WTP is the current platform for application  
servers, but
STP needs to focus on the needs of what are currrently called 'ESB's.  
These are not
application servers as catered for by WTP - while some ESBs may  
deploy into a J2EE
or Web container, others can quite happily work with a lightweight  
open source or
proprietary 'container' model. J2EE is only one of the solutions.

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

Is there a connection mentioned in the presentation? Must have missed  
it...

> [deletia]
> 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.

As would we all - that's why we need the code in, from the SCA java  
inspector all
the way to some runtime.

If you check the minutes of the IRC, Dan, you will see Carl Trieloff  
stating why
the STP hasn't gone directly for consumption of the WTP technology  
and instead
has decided to look at both it and this approach. We will have a  
number of
runtimes to which adopters will need to deploy, so we do need to cast  
our net
wider and take on some options before making a decision.

  rgds
   --oh
_______________________________________________
stp-pmc mailing list
stp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-pmc