geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: Issue - configuring the binary distribution
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:08:08 GMT

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 	I want to provide the necessary features in the web console to
> handle the stuff that a user is likely to want to change.  

Would this include the ability to add GBeans as well as configure 
existing ones?

> I further would
> like to have that implemented under the covers by a management API that
> can be invoked outside of the web console.  I further have the idea that
> to change stuff while the server is "not running" (including parts that
> barf on startup) we could load the server into a loaded-but-not-started
> mode and then use the management API against that -- presumably with some
> kind of command line tool, that's much more limited that the web console
> (at least, the minimum requirements are ports and perhaps SSL
> configuration, because those are the things that actually prevent you from
> starting the server to run the web console or a generic JMX or JSR-77 
> client).
> 	All that aside, the installer package leaves copies of the
> (customized) plans it uses.  Perhaps the ZIP/GZ package should do the
> same.
> Aaron
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>I want to open up a discussion for binary distribution.
>>Currently we are not packaging the plans in the binary distribution. 
>>This will likely cause some issues with the users as it will be 
>>inevitable that the configurations will need changing.  Examples will be 
>>SSL certificates (i.e. keyfiles) have an AJP connector or 
>>not...have a Realm that covers the entire server, or even Virtual Hosts. 
>>   These are all typically server level configurations and much less at 
>>an application specific level. I would say most users who want to use 
>>Geronimo in production *will* be having a need to change the 
>>configuration, and I think rebuilding from source is not acceptable.
>>We need to make the ability to alter these objects and easily change the 
>>config without the need to download the entire source base.
>>I think this is a critical path issue that we need to address before a 
>>1.0 release as it will cause huge complaints IMHO.
>>My .02...I think that packaging the plans with the assembly (and maybe a 
>>maven script or other to easily enable a redeployment (cli?)) is a short 
>>term solution and something we need to come to terms with, but we should 
>>also discuss our long term goals around this.

View raw message