Mail Archive Home | architecture List | May 2004 Index
| <-- Date Index --> | <-- Thread Index --> |
At 17:05 +0200 11/05/04, Jose Luis Ruiz Revuelta wrote:
El mar, 11-05-2004 a las 09:29, Eric Bruneton escribió:Richard S. Hall wrote: > This really depends on whether the purpose is to create a > deployment infrastructure for deploying Fractal-based applications > or if the purpose is to create a more general deployment middleware > (at least for Java), where Fractal-based applications are just one > type of application to be deployed. > > If the purpose is only for Fractal-based applications and the only > types of dependencies that exist among "packages" are > component-oriented dependencies (i.e., containment and binding), > then it probably doesn't make a difference what you call it. I hope it will be possible to create a deployment infrastructure for deploying Fractal-based applications that can also deploy arbitrary (Java and non Java) applications. This is not contradictory: it just imply that arbitrary applications can be seen as Fractal-based applications (and this should be possible since the Fractal model is modular, extensible, and not tied to Java; for example, plain old Java objects are compliant with Fractal level 0). Or, in other terms, that existing packaging formats can be seen as Fractal packages (and, in particular, that their dependencies can be seen as Fractal "containment and binding" dependencies - hence this mail http://www.objectweb.org/wws/arc/fractal/2004-05/msg00005.html). Or,Ummmm, are you sure that "contaiment and binding" dependencies are expresive enough to represent all kinds of dependencies for existing packaging formats? For example, in Debian, package metadata explicitly consider conflicts between packages. How can contaiment and binding dependencies be used to describe conflicts between packages? Sometimes due to any reason two existing packages can not live together(for example, both packages access a resource that can not be shared), in other words, are incompatible. I feel that conflict management is an important aspect in order to keep the consistency and the stability of an execution environment. Regards, Jose
It depends in large part of what you mean by 'package metadata exlicitly consider conflicts'. If you have a component which enforces as a policy to be bound at most once in any point in time, you have in effect a non-sharable component. Documenting a dependency by means of a binding towards this component means that you must follow the binding policy for this component and, in this particular case, successfully deploy your package if the referenced package is not already bound. A binding in Fractal can have a very rich (or complicated) semantics. To determine if the approach Eric has outlined is feasible or not, we need to assesss the nature of the dependencies betwen 'deployment units' used in existing systems.
Cheers, Jean-Bernard -- ************************************************************* Jean-Bernard STEFANI Research Director, SARDES Project INRIA Rhône-Alpes 655, avenue de l'Europe Montbonnot 38334 St Ismier Cedex France tel : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 57 fax : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 52 email : Jean-Bernard.Stefani@xxxxxxxx *************************************************************
| <-- Date Index --> | <-- Thread Index --> |
Powered by MHonArc.
Copyright © 1999-2005, ObjectWeb Consortium | contact | webmaster.