geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Web schemas -- one or many?
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:55:46 GMT
	To pick one little nit, if you have 1000 Geronimo+Tomcat servers
and 1000 Geronimo+Jetty servers, surely it's in your best interest to have
a Geronimo+Tomcat binary deployment environment and a Geronimo+Jetty
binary deployment environment.  I don't understand why you'd go to this
much trouble and then make your build server different than your runtime
server (other than, of course, not having a runtime deployer).

	That being the case, wouldn't you be happer to have one version of
the application that you can build on the Jetty build box for all the
Jetty servers and that you can *also* build on the Tomcat build box for
all the Tomcat servers?  No chance that your Jetty copy of the application
and your Tomcat copy of the application are out of sync?

Aaron

P.S. Is this even a realistic use case?  Who is it that has a 2000 node
cluster with 1000 WebLogic boxes and 1000 Websphere boxes all running the
same application?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, David Jencks wrote:
> While originally I thought having one schema with customization 
> elements for our many (currently 2) web containers was a great idea, I 
> have changed my mind and think that each web container should have a 
> separate namespace, although we should try to keep the schemas as 
> similar as possible.  Let me try to explain why.
> 
> The basic principle is that the namespace should determine the builder.
> 
> To implement this would require extensive modifications to the current 
> builder code, especially the earConfigBuilder.  That is kind of a minor 
> point :-)
> 
> Lets imagine a server farm where 1000 are running jetty and 1000 are 
> running tomcat, but where for various reasons only binary 
> configurations can be deployed to the production servers: all 
> deployment to binary configurations occurs on a separate machine, then 
> the binary configurations are sent to the servers and started.
> 
> If the namespace determines the builder and web container, then 
> deploying an app + plan is unambiguous: the builder chugs along, and 
> whenever if finds a new namespace in the plan it picks the builder and 
> tells it to get to work.
> 
> If we have something like we have now, where one namespace can apply to 
> one of several builders/containers, then we need more information, such 
> as a separate deployer configuration, to determine the proper target 
> and build the right configuration.
> 
> So, I'd like to move back to separate but equal schemas/namespaces for 
> jetty and tomcat plans.
> 
> Comments or objections?
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message