geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Schmidt <>
Subject Re: Disagreements regarding inclusion of Tomcat/Jetty Picker in M4 QA branch
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:27:13 GMT
Aaron Mulder wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>>3. Maybe I understand this wrong, but isn't it possible to offer two M4 
>>binary versions (one with Jetty perconfigured, and one with Tomcat)? The 
>>new feature in M5 will then be that the user decides during installation 
>>(izpack) which config he wants, so we don't need two binary versions 
>>anymore... Maybe I got this wrongly, but if I got this right then I 
>>don't understand this discussion :-).
>	It is possible for someone to get it working through "superhuman
>effort".  However, I don't think it's reasonable to require that anyone
>who's working on testing the Tomcat build of M4 or packaging an M4 release
>should go through that.  Also, any two people who did will undoubtedly end
>up with different results.  Therefore, I don't think we should include a
>Tomcat version of M4 based on the purely manual process.
What I meant was rather to just change the DD's and build the 
modules/assembly again for (and then deliver this snapshot as binary) - 
not to really separate the codebases as well ('superhuman effort'). This 
way you would have one binary for Jetty and one for Tomcat (where the 
only difference are the changed DD's - just like I did it yesterday 
manually). Or did you refer to the commenting/uncommenting of the DD's 
as 'superhuman effort'? :-)

>	IMHO, the biggest advantage to the change in HEAD is not that the
>installer gives you more options, but that any developer can build Tomcat
>with a simple command-line flag, which make it quite easy to work with and

View raw message