geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: Tomcat, logging, admin portlet, and GBeans
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:27:01 GMT
Can I ask that we move this thread back to its intended purpose (the 
proposal of a design for the web console to display either Tomcat or 
Jetty web logs ...  )?  

It looks like we're on the verge of branching off into more detailed 
discussion on how to build the Geronimo distributions.  I think this is 
all very important and I'd like to continue the discussion but I really 
would also like some input on the design that I proposed. 

David Jencks wrote:

> I've explained what is currently implemented.  I'm willing to make it 
> so selecting jetty or tomcat does not start the other configuration, 
> but where both configurations are present.  If anyone wants to build 
> separate jetty and tomcat distributions that are actually missing the 
> other container, for m5, I will not stand in their way so long as they 
> keep the tck running at least as smoothly as it is now, but I do not 
> have the time or interest to put into it.  I have no expectations that 
> the console will do anything in particular in M5.  I do wonder how you 
> determine which container is running.
> I will say that I think that the current assembly module approach to 
> building geronimo distributions is really bad and that something based 
> on the packaging and assembly plugins should be much more 
> maintainable.  I am aware that this opinion is shall we say 
> controversial.
> Using the same module to build two unrelated versions of the geronimo 
> distribution definitely violates the maven philosophy, and I suggest 
> if anyone wants to build separate distributions that they do so in two 
> separate modules.
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>     I really believe that choice is a bad thing.
> umm, really? why aren't we using jboss? or jonas?
>>>   I don't believe we should offer 2 options to a user.  How are they 
>>> supposed to decide?  How are we supposed to guide them?
> So we should just drop support for jetty or tomcat completely?  Which 
> one?
>>>     I'll grant you that there may (*may*) be some possible reason for
>>> a very advanced user to want to run 2 different web containers.  I 
>>> really
>>> believe this should be an advanced manual process (e.g. download Tomcat
>>> build, then deploy Jetty plan).  I really really really don't want to
>>> encumber every user with both Jetty and Tomcat in order to support this
>>> dual-container feature.
> We have been including all the jar files for both jetty and tomcat for 
> some time.  Adding the configurations to run them is a tiny step 
> compared to this.  I think if we remove one of the configurations we 
> need to remove the jar files that are only used with it.
>> +1
>> Gratuitous feature creep is evil and this particular feature violates 
>> the "principle of least astonishment".
> From my point of view, we are finally seeing some partial benefits 
> from being able to use some of the fundamental architectural features 
> of geronimo.  I don't really care how we present the choice of 
> container to the user in M5 so long as it doesn't complicate the build 
> or running the tck.  I've taken the approach that seems to me to most 
> clearly express geronimo principles and provides (in my opinion) the 
> simplest build and test path.  I don't think that the possible 
> benefits of providing two builds that each include only one container 
> outweigh the additional project management complexity involved.
> thanks
> david jencks

Joe Bohn

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."   -- Jim Elliot

View raw message