geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <dsundst...@gluecode.com>
Subject Re: Please Vote: 1 deployment tool or 2?
Date Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:35:52 GMT
Aaron,

I don't think you have concisely explained what you want to do that is 
different from the status quo, and this is why no one is rallying 
around your proposal.

Also this "vote" is in the form of a poll (select from choices) instead 
of a vote (+1/-1 for a specific idea).

-dain

--
Dain Sundstrom
Chief Architect
Gluecode Software
310.536.8355, ext. 26

On Oct 25, 2004, at 7:44 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> 	I only got one vote on this, and it wasn't from a committer.
> Please everyone take a look and send along your vote.
>
> Thanks,
> 	Aaron
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:46:41 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
> Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Vote: 1 deployment tool or 2?
>
> 	It looks like we'd like to have a command-line deployment tool
> with JSR-88 features.  This would be aimed at providing hot deploy and
> start/stop and other JSR-88 features, as well as operating on remote
> servers.  It could use the same logic as the Maven plugin or otherwise,
> I'm not concerned about the implementation yet.  The question is:
>
>  [  ] Add these features to the existing bin/deployer.jar tool
>  [  ] Create a new bin/xyz.jar tool with only these features, so we
>       have an "offline" deployer and a "JSR-88" or "J2EE" deployer.
>
> 	The advantage to the unified tool is that you'd have one deployer
> tool for any scenario.  One command to remember, etc.
>
> 	There are a couple advantages to having separate tools:
>
>  * If combined into one tool, the help would need to be rewritten to 
> make
>    the 2 usage modes clear.  For example, JSR-88 can't handle creating 
> a
>    CAR or executable/classPath information, while the current deployer
>    can't handle start/stop/undeploy/etc.  Also there would need to be
>    substantial syntax checking to avoid mixing parameters from 
> different
>    modes.  It seems unfortunate that a lot of the command line 
> arguments
>    would clash with each other.
>
>  * The code for a unified tool would need to decide how to operate 
> based
>    on the mode, and some operations (install/distribute) would need two
>    code paths for the same operation, making it harder to have clean 
> code.
>
>  * The JSR-88 features of a combined tool might work against other 
> servers
>    (given an appropriate plugin), but the other features would not, 
> which
>    would also need to be clarified.
>
>  * The current deploy tool would not depend on JSR-88, making it 
> possible
>    to have a more compact Geronimo distribution with a functional
>    deployer, granted without remote deploy or other JSR-88 features.
>
> 	Anyway, please vote.
>
> Thanks,
> 	Aaron


Mime
View raw message