This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
The label in the Runtime tab says "JBI." This seems wrong. JBI is the name of the specification. We don't typically use specification names in that way within the IDE's user interface. Instead, we put the actual product or project name. For example, the default string for registering an instance of the app. server is "Sun Java System Application Server" not "Java EE 5" or "J EE" or something like that. So to reduce confusion and increase consistency, it seems like we should change the label from "JBI" to "Open ESB".
Yes, the App server name is product specific, but the children nodes are not. Looks like we are using generic facility names instead of product name at the JBI level. In this case, it may be better to introduce another level, e.g., SJSA server - Applications - Resources - JVMs - JBIs - open esb - service mix
I like this idea. SJSA server - Applications - Resources - JVMs - JBI Meta-Containers - OpenESB - ServiceMix Instead of calling it JBIs, we could call it JBI Meta-Containers or JBI Runtimes We can start off with an OpenESB node, and later if time permits, add support for ServiceMix. Alternatively, we can invite the ServiceMix guys to add NetBeans support by contributing a plugin?
In that case, the "JBI Meta-Containers" node should be provided by the NB serverplugins module and the JBI Manager (which should probably be called Open ESB Manager) then plugs into that node.
Reassigning to serverplugins...
The same UI change probably also needs to go into GlassFish's Admin Console for consistency.
Note this change request, IMHO, contradicts with 98580 which promotes tight coupling between GF and OpenESB.
>Note this change request, IMHO, contradicts with 98580 which promotes tight coupling between GF and OpenESB. Note that the *original* intent of this IZ was not necessarily to promote loose coupling between GF and OpenESB. The reason I opened this IZ was to promote correct naming. Today we use the term "JBI" in the Runtime window of the NetBeans IDE. But using that name in that spot is not technically correct. We should use the term "OpenESB" in that spot instead. In other words, JBI is the specification and OpenESB is the specific implementation of that specification that GF includes. So if we are going to show the status of the OpenESB that is running in GF then we should use the label "OpenESB." Now, the subsequent comments on this IZ have suggested a tiered approach: "JBI runtimes" at the top level and then an entry for "OpenESB" under it, or something like that. I assume that is what you mean by loose coupling. I don't really have much of an opinion one way or the other on those tiered approach suggestions. I just want something that is not misleading and confusing, which is what we have today.
>A much more important change is to settle on the term Composite Application (or CA or Service Assembly or SA or Composite Application Service Assembly or CASA or deployment or application or whatever). +1, which is why I filed this IZ: http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=95636 Further, to comment a bit on this: >technically we are not doing anything more than using JBI apis. That's fine, but that still does not make things any clearer for the *end user*. There is a *huge* amount of confusion in our user community over what these different terms mean. Using "JBI" where we should be using "Open ESB" just makes things more confusing. Thanks, Gregg Mike Wright wrote On 03/27/07 08:58,: > Hi Jun, > > I can speak for the GlassFish/JBI integrated console: since our Beta 2 code freeze deadline is today, and we're already working on other fixes, we cannot make such a change easily. The term JBI appears in our navigation tree, breadcrumbs, tabs, inline help, and online help. It is not straightforward to change this, and we cannot change it in only one place (we already went through a change from a SWAED-guidelines-based request for more consistency in our terms/screens). We could change this for FCS, perhaps. > > > Also, there are GlassFish/JBI integration tools (Ant and CLI) that mention jbi and not open-esb. When/if we do this change, we should do it across the board (CAM, NetBeans/JBIManager, admin-cli, admin-gui, asant, possibly elsewhere? e.g. htmladaptor and jconsole both expose MBean names, operations, attributes using the term JBI.) > > > A much more important change is to settle on the term Composite Application (or CA or Service Assembly or SA or Composite Application Service Assembly or CASA or deployment or application or whatever). Currently this concept (or concepts) is (are) used in each tool differently. When/if we harmonize the Open ESB term across tools we should also fix this potential point of confusion. > > > Regards, > Mike > --- > Jun Qian wrote: > >> Hi Suresh, >> >> Today we have some functionalities in JBI Manager that are not defined in the JBI spec. Those are Open ESB specific. >> >> If your concern is that the proposed node structure change will get too many parties and too much code change involved, then how about implementing Gregg's original proposal, which is to simply replace the "JBI" label by "Open ESB" without any node structure change. This would just be a one-line change. Of course, we still need to do it in both JBI Manager and Admin Console. >> >> Just my 2 cents. >> >> Thanks, >> Jun >> >> >> Suresh Potiny wrote: >> >>> Jun, >>> >>> I am of the opinion that we should not change JBI to Open ESB at this point as technically we are not doing anything more than using JBI apis. Once we see a difference in the functionality, perhaps we can change it. What do you think? >>> >>> Suresh
I don't think the serverplugin for sunappserv9 has the string JBI in it... so this may have been mis-filed...