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: Tomcat, logging, admin portlet, and GBeans
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:12:13 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message