geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Issue - configuring the binary distribution
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:15:40 GMT

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 :-)

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) 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

View raw message