Bug 23396 - New optional task ejbclientjar added
Summary: New optional task ejbclientjar added
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Ant
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Optional Tasks (show other bugs)
Version: 1.7.0
Hardware: Other other
: P3 enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ant Notifications List
URL:
Keywords: PatchAvailable
: 21543 30518 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-09-24 22:26 UTC by Per Olesen
Modified: 2009-07-31 05:38 UTC (History)
3 users (show)



Attachments
ejbclientjar task patch against HEAD (12.28 KB, patch)
2003-09-24 22:29 UTC, Per Olesen
Details | Diff
ejbclientjar new files to go with patch against HEAD (22.99 KB, application/octet-stream)
2003-09-24 22:30 UTC, Per Olesen
Details
ejbclientjar task patch against HEAD with support-element support (13.03 KB, patch)
2003-10-01 06:19 UTC, Per Olesen
Details | Diff
New files needed for patch dated 20031001 (just submitted as attachment) (23.63 KB, application/x-gzip)
2003-10-01 06:21 UTC, Per Olesen
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Per Olesen 2003-09-24 22:26:28 UTC
As I've been mailing a bit about on the dev-list, I've been working on a new
optional task for generating ejb client jars. I now believe this task is ready
for its first use, so I've produced at patch for you committers.

I've also written testcases, javadoc and documentation!

The testcase needs j2ee.jar in lib/optional for building and running (it builds
a bean for testinput, which requires javax.ejb), but a condition in build.xml is
controlling that.

I'm a bit uncertain about what happens now. The patch I've made is against HEAD,
which currently is 1.7alpha. Naturally, if it gets accepted by some committer, I
would like to see it in the 1.6 branch too. I can produce a patch against that
one too, if it is needed?

Hmmm ... cannot find an attach button here in bugzilla. Maybe it is first
possible when I've submitted ....
Comment 1 Per Olesen 2003-09-24 22:29:54 UTC
Created attachment 8343 [details]
ejbclientjar task patch against HEAD
Comment 2 Per Olesen 2003-09-24 22:30:58 UTC
Created attachment 8344 [details]
ejbclientjar new files to go with patch against HEAD
Comment 3 Per Olesen 2003-10-01 06:19:13 UTC
Created attachment 8414 [details]
ejbclientjar task patch against HEAD with support-element support
Comment 4 Per Olesen 2003-10-01 06:21:34 UTC
Created attachment 8415 [details]
New files needed for patch dated 20031001 (just submitted as attachment)
Comment 5 Per Olesen 2003-10-01 06:29:53 UTC
Hi,

I just submitted a new patch and a new newfiles attachment to this enhancement
request, which effectively deprecates the two attachments dated "09/24/03". It
includes added functionality of a support-element, like in the ejbjar task.
There are docs and testcases for the added functionality too!

Again the patch is against HEAD, but I will be happy to produce patches against
1.6, if someone thinks it is okay for the new task to come into 1.6 even though
it seems we have entered beta :-)

Maybe someone which is "ejb-aware" can have a look at the patch?
I noticed it was a "Tim Fennell" who committed the first version of the EjbJar
task. Are you still a committer Tim?

BTW: As with ejbjar task, ejbclientjar task also depends upon bcel.jar. And if
you want to run the testcase, you will need j2ee.jar.
Comment 6 Dmitry Prokudin 2006-12-08 05:06:32 UTC
I've applied your patch to the 1.7 RC1 version but it doesn't work to me. The 
error I've got:

[ejbclientjar] Finding root-classes from 'META-INF/ejb-jar.xml' 
inside 'MyBeans.jar'

BUILD FAILED
build.xml:222: could not find required client jar class: 
[Lweblogic.deployment.descriptors.xml.EnvironmentEntry;

I guess the reason is in DependencyAnalyzer's getClassDependencies method. It 
returns class names along with field descriptor characters (like '[L' for array 
of Objects). And your methods don't expect such a result.
Comment 7 Stefan Bodewig 2009-07-31 03:39:44 UTC
*** Bug 21543 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Stefan Bodewig 2009-07-31 05:38:17 UTC
*** Bug 30518 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***