Re: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Wednesday 11am - 12pm EDT)

["Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I could unfortunately not make it to this call (vacation keeping me offline at bad times).

Will there be a resume of it somewhere?

/max



> Hi Naci,
>
> Phone details are listed below in this thread
>
> Thanks - Chuck
>
> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead
> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
> cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx  Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
>
>
>
> From:
> "Naci Dai" <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
> <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 07/15/2008 11:49 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Wednesday 11am - 12pm EDT)
>
>
>
> Chuck,
>
> What are the coordinates of the meeting?
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Chuck Bridgham <cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> OK,
>
> Sorry for the late notice - We are trying to get most parties involved in
> the discussion, so I will move the meeting to 11am EDT Wednesday
> (Tomorrow)
> Tim - I know you will miss, but I'll catch up with you later.
>
> Thanks - Chuck
>
> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead
> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
> cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx  Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
>
>
> From:
> Tim deBoer <deboer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> "konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc:
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 07/14/2008 12:04 PM
> Subject:
> RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm going to be out Wed/Thursday, and flying on Friday. Looks like we need
> to have a meeting without some of us, or try next week.
>
> Tim deBoer
> Eclipse WTP PMC, RAD Release Architect and WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada
> (905) 413-3503  (tieline 969)
> deboer@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> From:
> "Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 07/14/2008 11:00 AM
> Subject:
> RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> It turns out that tuesday morning doesn't work for me at all this week.
> How about Wednesday morning instead?
> 
>
> Konstantin Komissarchik | Principal Member of Technical Staff
> Phone: +1 425 201 1795 | Mobile: +1 206 898 0611
> Oracle Eclipse Tooling
> 411 108th Ave NE, Suite 2100 | Bellevue, WA 98004
> 
>
> From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:36 AM
> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT)
>
> I think this is now in conflict with the WTP PMC call where I attend.
> 
> Is it possible to make this call one hour later? It is not a problem for
> me to stay one more hour in the office.
> If the change is not possible for everybody, I will try to skip the PMC
> call.
> 
> Greetings,
> Kaloyan
>
> From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Chuck Bridgham
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:30 PM
> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
> Subject: [wtp-dev] Java EE Tools discussion (Tuesday 11am - 12pm EDT)
>
>
> Sorry didn't get this out in time, so lets have it Tuesday same time (11am
>  EDT)
>
> Java EE tools discussion.
>
> Topics:  Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>       Planning...
>
>
> DIAL-IN NUMBERS & PASSCODES:
>       US/Canada Toll Free: 877-421-0030
>       International call-in:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/images/f/f6/WTP_status_phone_access.pdf
>       Participant Passcode:  631004
> 
> Thanks - Chuck
>
> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead
> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
> cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx  Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
> From:
> Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM
> To:
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc:
> konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx, "General discussion of project-wide or
> architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date:
> 07/10/2008 01:35 PM
> Subject:
> RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes sorry - I can do it tomorrow or Monday.
>
> Any preference?
>
> Thanks - Chuck
>
> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead
> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
> cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx  Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
>
> From:
> "Raev, Kaloyan" <kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx>
> To:
> <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>, "General discussion of project-wide
> or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Chuck
> Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> Date:
> 07/10/2008 01:24 PM
> Subject:
> RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think we have lost the thread here...
> Chuck, what is the soonest day you can organize a telecon in the  8:00 AM
> to 9:00 AM PDT timeslot?
>
> Greetings,
> Kaloyan
>
> From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:17 PM
> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.; Chuck
> Bridgham
> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
> Next week works ok for me and I suppose I can do 8 AM PDT if that's
> absolutely the only time that makes sense for everyone else.
>
> - Konstantin
>
>
> From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:21 AM
> To: Chuck Bridgham
> Cc: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Does this mean you can organize the telecon any day after Thursday from
> 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM PDT?
>
> Greetings,
> Kaloyan
>
> From: Chuck Bridgham [mailto:cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:58 PM
> To: Raev, Kaloyan
> Cc: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This Thursday doesn't work for me, but I can meet next week, any day at
> the same time mentioned.
>
> Thanks - Chuck
>
> Rational Java EE Tooling Team Lead
> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
> cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx  Ph: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
> From:
> "Raev, Kaloyan" <kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx>
> To:
> Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "General discussion of project-wide or
> architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 07/02/2008 08:13 AM
> Subject:
> RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It really seems we need a phone call...
>
> Chuck, I remember we had phone calls when discussing JEE5 more than year
> ago. Is it possible to use the same teleconference for this topic?
> As far as I remember the time slot was on Thursday, 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM PDT.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Kaloyan
>
> From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:13 PM
> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
> I still haven't heard a viable argument for why this restriction is
> necessary. Allowing ear facet version changes does not completely address
> the scenario that I presented. In a large and complicated app, the user
> may not be ready to upgrade the ear spec level. That may be quite an
> undertaking. Regarding the relationship between facet version and
> descriptor schema, anything other than strict 1-to-1 relationship can lead
> to all sorts of problems in both WTP and adopter code. It should be
> considered an error case. Sounds like we need a phone call.
>
> - Konstantin
>
> From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Raev, Kaloyan
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:41 AM
> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
> Tim, Konstantin, thank you for your comments.
>
> I agree with Tim that the facet version of the EAR should be considered as
> the max spec level of the modules that this EAR can include. This sounds
> nice in terms of validation.
>
> On the other side I agree with the scenario given by Konstantin. At the
> moment the users really cannot upgrade an existing EAR 1.4 to EAR 5 and
> add EE 5 modules to it.
>
> So, the solution in this situation I see to be that we allow upgrading the
> facet version of EAR projects. Then we can do a strict
> validation/filtering based on the EAR's facet version and at the same time
> have the Konstantin's scenario possible. How hard would it be to introduce
> this? I even see two possible option:
> 1) upgrading EAR facet version without upgrading the DD (should be quite
> simple)
> 2) upgrading EAR facet version and upgrading the DD
>
> Greetings,
> Kaloyan
>
> From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 7:14 PM
> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
> Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
> Here are my views on the subject...
>
> Given that the spec is ambiguous, the question that should be asked is "is
> there at least one runtime that supports this scenario"? If the answer is
> yes for at least one runtime, then in order to follow WTP charter and not
> preclude proper integration of that runtime with WTP, we have to take a
> more allowing stance on this. There is indeed at least one runtime that
> has no problem with this scenario. I just had someone verify that WLS does
> in fact support it.
>
> The situation is made worse by the fact that we still have no support for
> spec level changes, so users can get stuck. The following scenario is not
> that uncommon:
>
> 1. User has an existing j2ee 1.4 app.
> 2. User needs to add a new module.
> 3. User wants to take advantage of java ee 5 features in new code.
>
> We should not be getting in the way of this scenario. If particular
> servers do not support this, then server adapters for those servers can
> perform that validation and alert the user.
>
> - Konstantin
>
>
> From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Tim deBoer
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:07 AM
> To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
> Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
>
> Hi Kaloyan,
>
> Thank you for raising this issue. I agree we are inconsistent in parts,
> and although we don't necessarily need to resolve all of the issues
> immediately we should at least have a common definition of what is
> 'correct' and may eventually be supported by WTP.
>
> Among the IBM committers we generally agree with #2, but have made an
> interesting distinction: the schema used by a DD is only a bottom boundary
> on the spec level of the EAR or module. As an example, a '1.4' EAR that
> contains an EJB 3.0 module is really just an EE 5 EAR (or EE 6.0 or ...)
> with an older DD. Likewise, EJB 3.0 annotations within an EJB module is an
> indication that the EJB is at least EE 5/EJB 3.0, even if the DD still
> points to the EJB 2.0 schema.
>
> If DD schemas and spec API usage are just a bottom boundary, it means that
> there is nothing within the contents of an EAR or module that can
> precisely determine its level. So how do we tell if it is valid for a user
> to add an EJB 3.0 module to what currently looks like a 1.4 EAR? Was it
> really an EE 5 EAR all along, do they want to uplevel the EAR, or is the
> user simply making a mistake?
>
> The solution we came to is using facets. Facet versions allow the user to
> tell us which spec level they expect an EAR/module to be at, and gives us
> something to tool for and validate against. The versions are set on
> project creation or on import based on what we initially find in the
> modules. >From there, the facet version of an EAR determines the maximum
> spec level of modules that can be added or which servers it can be run on,
> and validation can show errors for invalid modules or if the DD points to
> a schema above the level of the facet.
>
> If you agree with the original distinction (that true EAR 1.4s can't hold
> EJB 3 modules, but the schema used by the DD is only a bottom boundary on
> the spec level), then I think you'll eventually come to the same
> conclusion we have. Please feel free to let me know what you think and
> others can chime in, or we can discuss on one of the WTP calls.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim deBoer
> deboer@xxxxxxxxxx
> From:
> "Raev, Kaloyan" <kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx>
> To:
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 06/26/2008 09:04 AM
> Subject:
> [wtp-dev] Mixing spec levels in EAR. Opinions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to bring up again an issue that was discussed some time ago in
> Bugzilla. It is about mixing of spec levels of EAR and included modules.
> There are two bugs related:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=220929
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=229893
>
> Everybody agree that EAR with spec level X could include modules with
> spec level X or lower. Example: EAR 5 can include EJB 2.1.
> But there is no consensus of opinion on EAR with spec level X to include
> modules with spec level higher than X. Example: EAR 1.4 to include EJB
> 3.0. There are two contrary opinions:
> 1. EAR 1.4 can include EJB 3.0
> 2. EAR 1.4 cannot include EJB 3.0.
>
> The supporters of opinion 1 says that it is not forbidden by the Java EE
> spec.
> The supporters of opinion 2 says that it is (at least indirectly)
> forbidden by the spec. This is because the contract of the Java EE spec
> says that a deployment module compliant with spec level X must always be
> able to deploy on an application server compliant with spec level X. Now
> let's look again at our example of EAR 1.4 including EJB 3.0. EAR 1.4 is
> a J2EE 1.4 deployment module and it is guaranteed by the spec that it
> will deploy on all J2EE 1.4 compliant servers. But if we try to deploy
> it on an J2EE 1.4 compliant app server, that is not at the same time
> Java EE 5 compliant, then our deployment will fail, because of the
> included EJB 3.0 module (which is Java EE 5 spec level).
>
> At the moment there is an inconsistency in several dialogs in WTP
> regarding this issue. For example the Java EE Module Dependencies
> property page of an EAR 1.4 project filters Java EE 5 modules for
> selection, while at the same time the project creation wizard allows a
> EJB 3.0 project to be added to an existing EAR 1.4 project.
>
> I suggest that we discuss this problem and hope we will have an
> agreement for WTP 3.0.1. I invite all application server vendors
> represented in this mailing list to express their support for either
> opinion 1 or opinion 2.
>
> Greetings,
> Kaloyan Raev
> Eclipse WTP Committer
> <http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/people/person.php?name=raev>
> Senior Developer
> NW C JS TOOLS JEE (BG)
> SAP Labs Bulgaria
> T +359/2/9157-416
> mailto:kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx
> www.sap.com
> P Save a tree - please do not print this email unless you really need
> to!
>
> _______________________________________________
> wtp-dev mailing list
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wtp-dev mailing list
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wtp-dev mailing list
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> wtp-dev mailing list
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wtp-dev mailing list
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
>
>
>
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/