[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [virgo-dev] [libra-dev] A home for Bundlor

Hi Naci!

Therefore I could imagine having something like an extension point for those
deployment scenarios (a "deployer" extension point maybe), where the server
adapter is using the "deployer extensions" to deploy different kind of
projects. Then we could implement, step by step, extensions for those
different kind of projects. Its just a rough idea, but I would be happy to
hear your opinions... :-)

Framework adapters already support this. It is based on an inherited capability from WTP server adapters. From 10000 ft it look a bit like this:

I don't have enough in-depth knowledge of the adapter technology in WTP, but I had something in mind which allows you to fully implement the server adaptor without the exact knowledge of all the different kind of projects and let separate bundles implement some kind of a bridge between the Virgo server adapter and a concrete project type.

If I understand this correctly in your terms, I would like to implement one server adaptor for Virgo servers, but let other bundles add module types (and their associated behavior) to that adapter.

Do you think that is possible?


Every runtime type (i.e. equinox, felix, virgo or tomcat) can support
different types of modules. For example the Equinox adapter supports:


Which is any PDE bundles that has a facet. Tomcat or JOnAS support other things such as WARs, EARs etc., not all of them OSGi. In WTP terminology these are called modules (org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IModule). This determines what can be targeted to an adapter, also each Module type can have different behavior associated with publishing/deployment. These differences are typically handled in IFrameworkInstance extensionsor WTP IServerBehaviour in methods such as publishServer or publishModule.

It is quite possible to write an adapter for Virgo that can handle
each type of module (PDE, Web, Bundlor generated etc) in its own way.

When we decide to let the Bundlor tooling become part of PDE (or an
extension to PDE), we would just need to modify the deployer extensions for
those two projects (or just eliminate the bundlor specific one). When we
decide that Bundlor is not becoming part of PDE, then we just keep those two

What do you think?


On 27.01.12 21:43, Miles Parker wrote:

Yeah, that would be a problem, wouldn't it. :) TO be clear, I meant "if
Virgo *IDE* only supported.."  I think what I'm asking is that if Libra
tools are capable of packaging up WAR and web projects as PDE projects
(still not clear on whether that is true) and Virgo IDE could manage those,
then you would have a single PDE deployment scenario.

The reason that I'm asking all of these questions is that I'm trying to
think through the implications of having many to many relationships between
the development environment and the deployment environment. If you were able
to have a common interchange mechanism it seems that it could simplify a lot
of things, as you would only have to maintain a) something to get all
development artifacts treated as PDE, and b) something to manage the
deployment of those artifacts so they end up on the Virgo server as
expected. I'm not saying this is a *good* idea or one that should even be
seriously considered, but I'm trying to wrap my head around whether it is
even possible.

Also to be clear, I'm only talking about bundles / plugin projects, i.e.
actual components needed to support clients post-deployment. So AFA plans
go, that would be handled by unique tooling. There is a bug open on that.

On Jan 27, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Christian Dupuis wrote:

OK, so it sounds like PDE is the common denominator, which was sort
of my expectation / hope. I think the important question to ask at
this point is the reverse; if Virgo *only* spoke PDE, what
implications would that have for users? Are there scenarios that we
couldn't support -- even with the Libra adapters -- given that?

You wouldn't be able to deploy WAR projects, plans or web modules.


Christian Dupuis, Director, R&D
SpringSource, a division of VMware
www.springsource.com - cdupuis@xxxxxxxxxx - @cdupuis




From: Miles Parker [mailto:miles.parker@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 20 ÑÐÑÐÑÐ 2012 Ð. 20:48 Ñ.
To: Glyn Normington
Cc: Raev, Kaloyan; Martin Lippert; Leo Dos Santos;
libra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx ; virgo-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx ; pde-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: A home for Bundlor

On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:43 AM, Glyn Normington wrote:

On 20 Jan 2012, at 02:10, Miles Parker wrote:

the larger Spring donation which has also spawned Libra etc..

For the record, let's be clear that SAP donated Libra and then factored some of the SpringSource donated Virgo IDE into Libra.

Thanks Glyn, my mistake. I'm still not familiar with all of the history here.

Do you agree that a Proof-of-Concept showing how Bundlor can be
integrated with PDE is a good first step? If we see that this is
possible (and also how it is possible), will open the door for many
improvements like https://bugs.eclipse.org/329198 you have

Yes to the first question. I'm not sure it's related to the second bug.

In the first case we're asking "would Bundlor be useful to general
PDE projects, and if so would that usefulness outweigh potential
loss of transparency, maintenance costs and so on". As POC would be
like, "support creating of generic PDE projects that make use of the
bundlor mechanism". I think that PDE is best qualified to give an
answer to that one. Is there anyone from PDE who has thoughts to
share on that?

In the second we're really asking "given a PDE project, can we make
it more easy to build, execute and run with Virgo and other
[non-Eclipse SDK] Runtime environments by leveraging PDE tools?" I
think the Libra and Virgo teams will have to answer that one. Note
by the way that it is perfectly easy at this point to actually
deploy PDE built bundles, you just have to do the extra steps of
exporting or building the plugins manually and then copying them off
to Virgo runtime. So I think this part is largely a matter of some
automation. But there are much more complex scenarios, where for
example we might want to use the Run Configuration stuff as the
primary gateway into launching and testing for self-hosted Virgo and
Libra targets, rather or in addition to the current approach of
manually creating local server(s) instances for that.


virgo-dev mailing list

virgo-dev mailing list

virgo-dev mailing list

_______________________________________________ libra-dev mailing list libra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/libra-dev