geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Web schemas -- one or many?
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:53:42 GMT
>
I'd like to throw more gasoline on this fire by extending my proposal 
below:

1. Use the gbean.enabled attribute extensively and include both the 
jetty  and tomcat servers in the main config, with possibly one of them 
disabled: extend the config db so it can save the enabled/disabled 
state.  Then you can turn the one you want on or off.

2. Write a delegating web deployer that has a default deployer, used 
for "no plan" and "generic plan": others it points to the correct 
deployer based on the namespace.

Then we will need only one set of plans, and one assembly.

thanks
david jencks



> <snip>
> So, I realize there is a bit of weakness in my idea, namely a lot of 
> web apps don't need a plan: so in my rosy future, there would need to 
> be a "default web container" that these would get pushed to.  So, how 
> about this idea:
>
> a "fake" common schema that includes the common elements and a single 
> [virtual-]host element
> a jetty schema that is the same except allowing multiple virtual-host 
> elements
> a tomcat schema that is the same but includes the additional tomcat 
> specific elements.
>
> The tomcat and jetty builders can both change the common namespace to 
> their own namespace and deploy as if it is their own.
>
> This takes care of 100% of the cases you mentioned :-)  However, it 
> doesn't take care of the <cross-context/> element which can be put in 
> the tomcat config without making it undeployable on jetty.  I'll 
> actually weaken my case a bit by pointing out that the tomcat specific 
> gbeans relating to the tomcat-realm and valve-chain should probably 
> come from tomcat specific xml in the tomcat schema rather than plain 
> gbean definitions.
>
> Could you live with this proposal?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>


Mime
View raw message