geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: M5: is the izpack installer anywhere near alive?
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:30:24 GMT

On Sep 28, 2005, at 8:44 AM, 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.
well, I looked at what was in the izpack config files and what is 
configured to assemble geronimo and they don't have a very close 
relationship to each other.  I think it's a safe conclusion that it 
won't work.  I hope I'm wrong.

>  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>

First of all my apologies for my tone, I have had extremely limited 
internet access the last 3 days since I started looking at the 
installer and may have jumped to conclusions: anyway I couldn't ask 
anyone how it worked.  I'm still rather frazzled and if I'm continuing 
to be rude I apologize in advance.

Ok, how do I run the installer?  Where are the instructions for it?  
How is it packaged?  At the moment we have no way of testing anything 
from the installer, so are there any plans to certify a geronimo 
distribution that includes the installer? Who is going to test it?  If 
we don't certify it do we want to ship it?  How would we make it clear 
that the geronimo-installer is not certified?

If we changed the installer so all it does is produce  customized 
config.list/xml files and does not change anything else in the 
distribution I think we could include it with the standard certified 
distro.  If it does anything else I think we would have to certify it 
> 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.

I don't think we can do this for M5 based on how the tck stuff is 
working.  I think we need to ship 1 geronimo package that can be run 
with jetty, tomcat, or both.
> 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.

I'm finishing up changes that will build configurations for the apps 
for each of jetty and tomcat.

> 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.

I think the most plausible thing we can do for M5 is supply sets of 
config.list/xml files for jetty only, tomcat only, and both, and 
include all the configurations.

I explained the current setup in more detail in another email.  I 
originally thought we should have the installer remove unwanted 
configurations but after more thought I think this might not be 
consistent with the tck certification guidelines.

david jencks

> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> On 9/27/05, David Jencks <> 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

View raw message