geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lynch, Peter" <Peter.Ly...@NBNZ.CO.NZ>
Subject RE: Please Vote: 1 deployment tool or 2?
Date Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:05:05 GMT
I think this question should be addressed to the user community.  As a
(potential) user, I would have a preference for only one tool (and a gui one
at that).

Cheers,
Peter Lynch

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Aaron Mulder [SMTP:ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu]
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:45 PM
> To:	dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject:	Please Vote: 1 deployment tool or 2?
> 
> 	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

This communication is confidential and may contain privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it.
If you have received it in error please immediately notify me by return email
and delete the emails.
Thank you.

Mime
View raw message