geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@savoirtech.com>
Subject Re: Issue - configuring the binary distribution
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:20:42 GMT


David Jencks wrote:
> 
> On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> 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?
> 
> 
> So far I am really against adding gbeans to existing configurations.  I 
> don't have a problem with the web console generating entirely new 
> configurations, although I doubt it is all that useful.  My opinions can 
> always be argued against :-)

This will be a problem with the web stuff.  Particularly with virtual 
hosts, valves, or custom realms (which many people use).  This would 
require the existing configurations to change by adding the particular 
object/gbean. How about an AJP connector for those that want to 
front-end a web server in fron of the servlet container at a system wide 
level?

Also, what about custom login modules and domains that are server wide?

Jeff

> 
> david jencks
> 
>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> 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)...to 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.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message