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 04:41:34 GMT
I would assert that most web apps are simple and do not require  
complex container specific configuration, so a common plan is the  
more desirable choice.  In the rare places where tomcat and jetty  
differ, we allow a name space designated escape to the container  
specific elements.

Lets make the commons stuff (80%) simple and have an escape system  
for the complex (20%) installations.


On Aug 22, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> 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.
> I would assert that most applications will be targeted at one  
> environment or another. Most enterprise users will pick one  
> platform and develop for that, most ISVs will pick one platform and  
> distribute for that. In either case the overhead of testing all  
> possible combinations will prove too expensive.
> Let's face reality: Geronimo+Tomcat and Geronimo+Jetty *are*  
> different products - they even require separate certification.  
> Anyone distributing an application is either going to ship the one  
> they work with, or ship pre-tested deployment plans for both (just  
> like they ship plans for JBoss, WebLogic or WebSphere).
> The choice of web container is actually non-representative of the  
> general case as there is relatively little web-container specific  
> configuration. When you look at EJB configuration etc. there is  
> much more container specific information needed - are we going to  
> define one plan for all EJB containers? Say it ain't so!
> This experiment with common web container configuration has shown  
> that implementations *are* different, even down to basic concepts  
> like what a "host" is. And that's just with two sample points, what  
> about others?
> --
> Jeremy

View raw message