JEE Status Meetings/2010-04-15
- Carl Anderson
- Jason Peterson
- Kaloyan Raev
- Angel Vera
- Rob Stryker
- Ludovic Champenois
Java EE 6
- What is left to do in M7?
- Bugs 309067, 309206
- List of Java EE 6 bugs that need to be rolled into the WTP 3.2 plan
- Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards
- Java EE Tools plan
- EJB Tools plan
- What is left to do in M7?
- Bugs 308665, 309224
- Replace Existing JavaEE Dependencies page
- Bugs marked with the Flexible Modules whiteboard entry
Modules always synchronized 304673 - any update?
Server Tools Enhancements:
|293742||APIs completed, need to work on the UI part.|
|286699||This is a bug. We plan to fix this in 3.2|
Carl - I put out a few bugs that we ought to consider. Bug 309067
Kaloyan - This is something we didn't look at. We'll try to do that for M7.
General discussion about 309206. Agreement reached that an App Client in a WAR is treated just as a JAR.
Carl - Flexible modules. The first bug is 308665, which is to mark all of the new stuff for the Deployment Assembly page as provisional.
Rob - almost all of the changes that we have found in the last week have been at the consumer level. We need this to remain provisional until it all settles down.
Carl - next is 309224
Chuck - For instance, now with Java EE, now that we have the separate assembly and manifest, we need to not allow assembling jars within an EJB jar.
Jason P - I talked to Jason S about this. The whole assembly page can create new problems that users can get into with all of the flexibility that we have now. He wants users to be able to make these mistakes, and then have some sort of validator.
Rob - I completely agree with that.
Chuck - But different jars within jars? You cannot use them.
Jason P - I agree completely.
Rob - my team comes from the standpoint that we need to allow the user to do as much as possible. Different servers implement things beyond the spec. We need to allow things like that.
Chuck - we definitely need a validator. We need to be very clear to users that once they start creating these references, they may not understand that they cannot refer to them. It needs to be clear that this needs to be in the MANIFEST section for it to work. For instance, right now, for web projects, the only reference that has the checkbox to go into WEB-INF/lib is a project reference. At the very least, this bug could become that- the checkbox should be there for all reference types.
Jason P - We should also do that for EAR. For all of the references in an EAR, we should allow them to put it into the EAR's lib directory.
Ludo - If you go into the WEB-INF/lib node, I was expecting a context menu that allows you to add things there.
Chuck - I think we have that on the EAR. It should be fairly straight-forward to do that for Web.
Kaloyan - for the checkbox to add them to WEB-INF/lib, should that be on by default?
Chuck & Jason P - I agree with that.
Chuck - the other comment I had on that bug, in the manifest, you can only have jar references. We filtered out other reference types - wars and such - because they were not valid.
Rob - I would have to look at the API. I think there is already something in there.
Chuck - I worked on the patch last night. You do have a class there already.
Rob - That would work, as long as an extender could add that back in. That should be fine.
Carl - anything else for flexible modules?
Rob - there is 308510. Instead of doing classpath/con, the current implementation uses classpath.con - I am really hesitant to use the same prefix. The default resolver would try to return just the virtual archive component, whereas we really want to return a bunch of files.
Jason P - the JDT is where there are things like classpath/con.
Rob - When I was doing the wizard page for this, I made it so that when you click finish, it pops up the JDT wizard on top of it.
Chuck - I would need to take a look.
Rob - Instead of copying all of their code, I just set it up so that you click finish, and it pops up the JDT wizard. Whatever you click on the JDT wizard is the final selection for the first wizard.
Angel - The way you are describing it, are you actually launching the JDT wizard?
Rob - Yes. Is there a way to instantiate their pages and then put it into the Task Wizard?
Angel - I am not sure you can.
Rob - This is a solution that works. It may not be 100% intuitive, but it works.
Angel - We really want to put a requirement on the JDT to have them open it up so that we can reuse their code.
Chuck - I think that is a good idea, even if it is not for this release.
Rob - this is moreso a problem with TaskWizard. I can see how to instantiate their pages, but I don't see how to put it into the Task Wizard.
Carl - I'd like to jump back up to the Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards
Ludo - We are trying to move all of our wizards to EPL. The legal approval is above my VP. They all know that I am waiting for it ASAP. Meanwhile, I have prepared the patch for the EJB Timer Wizard. I gave it to Raghu to test it and review it. Now, the big question- what is the latest deadline for a patch?
Chuck - realistically, it is next Wednesday.
Carl - We should allow 24 hrs for PMC, so it would be Tuesday.
Chuck - I am not exactly sure what the plans are, but I think there will be an interim release this fall. If you can't get it in on time, we would also like to look at your contributions and make sure that your contributions match up.
Ludo - we try to reuse the same wizard frameworks that you are using. We didn't want to reinvent the framework. It is more or less the same thing you have done. First, if I can contribute more things by September and maybe December, that would be perfect for me.
Carl - next is 304673.
Rob - I passed that off to Angel.
Angel - I will look at that this week.
Rob - right now, it walks through the entire tree twice. If we cache it, then it should speed up things drastically. We have been having some speed problems, so I am looking for ideas.
Chuck - this has been an area of performance issues in the past.
Carl - there are two more Server Tools Enhancements.
Angel - the second one, 286699, I am going to try to get into M7. The first one - 293742- the API is in. We still need to add in the actions.
Rob - It is not a huge impact, but it is something our users have been requesting, and it is something that we would like to have.
Angel - we still need to add a new action. After M7, we won't be able to do it.
Rob - My old patch is still pretty good. You would need to call this new method, to make sure the selection is good. Also, I am going to commit my PMC approved bug and request a respin.
Carl - We have another bug that got PMC approval late last night- I will commit that and ask for a respin, too.