geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo subprojects?
Date Sat, 28 May 2005 17:38:29 GMT

On May 28, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Brian K. Wallace wrote:

> Agreed. And this, if properly combined with 'common deployments',  
> could
> be a major step toward getting new users more interested.  
> Undoubtedly it
> will require a shift in developer processes, but in the long run it
> would (in theory - application of that theory being more in procedure
> than possibility) make fixes and enhancements swifter.

Absolutely

> My questions at the root of this are:
> ~  1. Assuming the whole of Geronimo passes the TCK, what can be  
> said of
> a 'minimal' Geronimo? Is it able to claim anything with regard to  
> the TCK?

It depends on the specifications the subproject is implementing and  
if Sun has a stand-alone tck for the specifications.  For example, if  
it were the Geronimo 'just a webserver edition' we could certify it  
for servlets and jsp because they have standalone tcks, but if it  
were tx and jca we could not certify it since there are no standalone  
tcks for those specs.

On the other hand, I'm sure if enough people are interested,  
sufficient pressure could be applied to Sun to carve a stand-alone  
tck out of the j2ee monolith.

> ~  2. In stating "there is a demonstrated desire", what roadblocks or
> opposition is there to having each of the current modules (short of  
> the
> kernel, common, core and presumably deployment - and anything else
> needed for the server to start-up and do nothing) each be
> 'self-contained'? Obviously the 'base' server would have to know what
> it's really capable of (unless you go off the deep end with  
> discovery),
> but over and above that base it seems that a WebConnector - be it  
> Jetty
> for user 1 or Tomcat for user 2 may be used with or without Naming,  
> with
> or without Spring and/or Transactions, etc. Why would there be a  
> need to
> limit modules just to what there is a "demonstrated desire" to have?

Each subproject has an inherent amount of overhead.  For example,  
each subproject needs a separate project management committee, each  
one will need to produce releases (not an easy task) and so on.  I  
would sat that "there is a demonstrated desire" when we have enough  
people showing up to handle the overhead and work on the code.  I  
personally would say one person is not enough, and seven is more then  
enough.

> Making everything as small and self-contained (even if they don't  
> 'run'
> on their own) seems to be a smart move in allowing a bug in one module
> to be fixed and made available without waiting on anything else (how
> many times have we wanted a typo fixed that had to wait for a  
> completely
> new feature to be implemented?).

I think there are technical and realistic limits to this.  Some  
modules are simply to small to be full projects.  For example the rmi  
classloadder is like 5 classes.  Also some modules naturally fit  
together and have a high degree of coupling.  For example the Tx  
manager and the j2ca implementation naturally fit together.  Now you  
can use the Tx manager standalone, but you can't really use j2ca  
without a Tx manager. Because of that linking the modules normally  
move together.  I would say we put both in one sub project and have  
them release two jars.

-dain

Mime
View raw message