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 02:16:26 GMT

On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Aug 24, 2005, at 6:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 6:25 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:20 PM, 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is one of the big problems with processing a configuration on 
>>> one computer and deploying it on another.  If you were to process a 
>>> tomcat configuration on you box and deploy it to a jetty server you 
>>> will have the same problem.  Also, if you do not have an exact image 
>>> of what is running on the server the configuration won't even 
>>> deserialize even if it is using tomcat.  As I see it the problem is 
>>> "portable configurations" simply don't work, not that we need to 
>>> split our common web configuration into two.
>>>
>>
>> I have not experienced any evidence that versioned immutable 
>> configurations don't work.  I think our experience so far has been 
>> entirely with unversioned configurations that change every 5 seconds. 
>>  Do you have any evidence that versioned binary configurations 
>> wouldn't work?
>
> Yes.  I build a configuration on my mac laptop, and push it to a 
> windows box for TCK testing.  The windows box has a different version 
> of the OpenEJB jar, so the configurations won't deserialize.  I 
> consider myself a fairly savvy user, and most trivial changes I 
> assumed would work in a any other server have surprising consequences 
> in Geronimo.  The most glowing example is attempting to push a patched 
> jar to the server, which results in object serialization errors.  This 
> means that for a user to test a fix they need to install a new server, 
> reconfigure the server, and reinstall all applications.

AFAICT, our binary configurations are currently unversioned, so I'm not 
sure how you can come to any conclusions about versioned configurations 
from geronimo.  Could you explain?

thanks
david jencks

>
> -dain
>


Mime
View raw message