Re: [libra-dev] [virgo-dev] A home for Bundlor

[Naci Dai <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I would prefer to decouple the discussion around the home of the Bundlor
> project from the deployment features of the Virgo IDE or the Virgo server
> adaptor (which might become part of Libra one day).

I agree - these are not overlapping features.

> 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:


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

      <runtimeType
            id="org.eclipse.libra.framework.equinox.runtimeType.30x"
       ..
            class="org.eclipse.libra.framework.equinox.EquinoxFramework">
		    <moduleType
		         types="osgi.bundle"
		         versions="4.2"/>
		    ....


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
> extensions.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> -Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Dupuis, Director, R&D
>>> SpringSource, a division of VMware
>>> www.springsource.com - cdupuis@xxxxxxxxxx - @cdupuis
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Miles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Kaloyan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Miles Parker [mailto:miles.parker@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: 20 януари 2012 г. 20:48 ч.
>>>> 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
>>>> mentioned.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Miles
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> virgo-dev mailing list
>>>> virgo-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/virgo-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> virgo-dev mailing list
>>> virgo-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/virgo-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> virgo-dev mailing list
>> virgo-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/virgo-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> libra-dev mailing list
> libra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/libra-dev



-- 
Naci Dai - naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
eteration a.s.  itu ari-1 25 maslak istanbul tr
ph: +90 212 328 0825 - fax: +90 212 328 0521