geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: RES: "Virtual Hosting"
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:37:27 GMT
	I agree that what you describe can be a handy feature, with two 

 - it needs to be easy to change all relevant ports so you can run 2 
configs without them conflicting by default

 - it would be nicer if all the common code was shared across 
configuration dirs, instead of (for example) having a full servlet engine 
in each config dir.  In other words, let's put all the config files in 
there but leave the bulky code elsewhere.

	However, I'm really suggesting we implement this within the VM,
whereas the above works by running multiple VMs.  If you want to run
multiple VMs, you can always just install the product twice.  I prefer to
also have the option to run apps sandboxed in the same VM.  Granted you
wouldn't be able to run different apps with different server components
(EJB/Web container, etc.) this way, but I think that's OK.


On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Denes wrote:
> For this kind of feature, I think that an approach like JBOSS, where you
> can define several server configurations based on directories is better,
> because the sandbox will have to deal with several server issues like
> where is the CMP Database, what is the cluster configs and, as Geronimo
> will be fully plugable, what implementations of each J2EE stack
> component it will want to use.
> Besides, this approach has the interesting feature that I can put
> various J2EE applications in the same sandbox, if I want to.
> Not sure if JBoss has a different JNDI tree for each server
> configuration when you have several JBoss instances running in the same
> server; but this is a key issue for a feature like that.
> Denes
> > -----Mensagem original-----
> > De: Aaron Mulder []
> > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 8 de agosto de 2003 13:08
> > Para:
> > Assunto: Re: "Virtual Hosting"
> > 
> > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Justin Ju wrote:
> > > just like server cluster, but some environment context may be shared
> > among
> > > all these applications?
> > 
> > 	Ideally, it would appear to each application that it was the
> only
> > application running in the server, despite the fact that there may
> > actually be 3 or 4 or a dozen apps running in the server.  So if an
> > application crawls JNDI, it will see nothing but its own stuff.  If
> three
> > applications each declare a DB pool called "Database", the bindings
> won't
> > fail or replace other bindings, but instead each app will see only its
> own
> > DB pool.  If a user can log in to application A (and it's JNDI space),
> > that does not mean the user can log in to application B (or its JNDI
> > space).  Like virtual hosting, in the sense that as far as each app is
> > concerned it's the only app, whereas under the covers there may be
> loads
> > of them.
> > 
> > Aaron

View raw message