geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: M5: is the izpack installer anywhere near alive?
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:15:29 GMT
Aaron,

The current proposal is that there will be just 1 distribution package 
for Geronimo which includes 3 configuration files (one for both tomcat & 
jetty, just jetty, and just tomcat).  However, I'm with you in that I 
don't understand how this will practically work for applications that 
must be deployed to both or pre-deployed (as in the case of the web 
console) even though DavidJ and DavidB have tried to explain it to me.

See this thread for my questions and the answers I received:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200509.mbox/%3c4338A05C.2020206@earthlink.net%3e

Joe

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I would definitely object to removing it from M5.  <rant>And for that
> matter, I object to you characterizing it as "thoroughly broken"
> without looking.  And if you have no idea how it's supposed to be used
> or how to go about fixing it, why don't you ask for help?  I'm sure
> someone who's familiar with the installer would be happy to walk you
> through it.</rant>
> 
> But back to the current state.  Basically, the installer has screens
> that let you set variables, and those variables get substituted into
> config.xml or config.list or any other file you care to mangle.  This
> should all be working already, though we may need to tweak the list of
> variables (I think we added CORBA to the standard plans since the last
> installer update).
> 
> I'm assuming we're going to distribute 2 Geronimo packages, 1 Tomcat,
> and 1 Jetty.  Likewise, we should have 2 installer packages, 1 Tomcat,
> and 1 Jetty.  They'd probably use the exact same install sequence and
> substitution variables, just slightly different config.xml/config.list
> files.  This is no different than the non-installer builds.
> 
> But for the record, can you explain exactly how the Jetty/Tomcat stuff
> works now?  My understanding is that we create the same server
> configuration either way, but then we select either Jetty or Tomcat to
> be started, and then deploy all the standard applications such that
> they only work for Jetty or only for Tomcat, whichever you selected. 
> So we can't have "one server distribution" where you can pick between
> Jetty or Tomcat, because all the apps (console, welcome, etc.) will
> only work for one or the other.
> 
> If that's all correct, I think the last stop of the Jetty build should
> be to undeploy the Tomcat and Tomcat Runtime Deployer modules, and
> likewise undeploy Jetty for the Tomcat build, so there's no confusion
> and only one web container available in the build a user ends up with.
> 
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> 
> On 9/27/05, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>I have never had time to look into how the izpack installer stuff
>>works, but I'm pretty sure that with all the jetty/tomcat changes it is
>>now thoroughly broken.  I have no idea how it is supposed to be used so
>>I don't see how to start fixing it.  I also think that most of the
>>functionality it had is now available from the config.xml /config.list
>>stuff.  In order to avoid giving a bad impression I suggest we remove
>>it from M5.
>>
>>I think that with  the config.xml/config.list stuff we should be able
>>to make a simpler installer that sets values in config.xml, includes
>>entries in config.list, and removes unwanted configurations from the
>>config-store.  This should also be considerably faster that something
>>that has to deploy configurations itself :-)
>>
>>thanks
>>david jencks
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn@earthlink.net

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

Mime
View raw message