geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Web container-specific configuration
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:56:21 GMT
+1 These are my sentiments as well.


On Aug 22, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

>     I really disagree with having separate namespaces for the entire
> web deployment plan for Tomcat and Jetty.  It makes Geronimo+Tomcat  
> and
> Geronimo+Jetty totally different products.  If I'm going to release a
> typical application for Geronimo, you're saying that every single  
> bit of
> will be identical except for some stupid plumbing in the web  
> plans?  So
> you must release a Geronimo+Tomcat version of the application and a
> Geronimo+Jetty version of the application?  Say it ain't so!
>     I'll grant that it's possible to construct an application that
> works properly in only one container or the other.  But I really  
> object to
> crafting our whole configuration strategy around that case, which I  
> expect
> to be very rare.  I think it's going to be much more common that a  
> plan is
> totally portable, or totally portable with a couple of container- 
> specific
> tweaks for both containers that don't cause the app to fail if not
> deployed in its preferred container.  I'd rather make that the  
> baseline,
> and allow a generic plan and a generic plan with extensions for 0-N  
> web
> containers.
> Aaron
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, David Jencks wrote:
>> After talking this issue over with Jeremy a bit and thinking about it
>> some more I don't think that the generic multi-container schema is a
>> good idea.  I think the deployment system should be based on
>> namespace determines builder
>> and that we should not do anything that will make this difficult  
>> in the
>> future.
>> If the packaging plugin was working, we could, for each app (such as
>> the console) that needs to run on both containers, generate  a
>> configuration for each container.  Then you could run either one,
>> without rebuilding geronimo or the application config.
>> I'm going to work on a proposal for schemas that would help keep the
>> configs for different containers as similar as possible.
>> Meanwhile I've committed the "any" solution as I think it is
>> considerably better than what we have now.  One problem with this is
>> that most tomcat configurations will not in fact be portable: if they
>> contain tomcat realm or tomcat valve gbeans, the config just plain
>> won't deploy under jetty.  It might not be so easy, but I'm sure  
>> there
>> are equivalent ways to get in trouble using jetty.
>> Until we actually have the packaging plugin working, I suggest we  
>> have
>> the tomcat and jetty builders munge a generic namespace to their
>> specific namespace, so that completely generic plans will still  
>> deploy
>> on both.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> The first would result in a configuration that could run on
>>>> any web container, the last two would produce configurations
>>>> that would run on a specific web container. Applications
>>>> would typically use the first form unless they needed
>>>> container-specific functionality (which would also mean that
>>>> they needed that specific container at runtime).
>>>> I included the namespace qualifiers for clarity. I believe
>>>> that suitable use of schema imports would mean that they
>>>> could be removed simplifying the XML form used by users. It
>>>> may be harder for us to implement, but I think ease-of-use is
>>>> more important here than ease-of-implementation.
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy
>>> Everything you proposed is fine with me except for forcing the
>>> namespace for
>>> one container.  I think we should have a universal web plan that  
>>> will
>>> be
>>> accepted under both containers.  So I would ask that we allow the
>>> generic
>>> file to be allowed to include both a jetty and tomcat name space.
>>> This will
>>> make our applications, like the console and debugtool to have 1
>>> geronimo-web.xml per app.  IMHO this is a much simpler way to manage
>>> the
>>> apps that must run under both containers.  I believe this is how DJ
>>> implemented it.
>>> Jeff

View raw message