geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: More port conflicts
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:57:56 GMT

On Oct 11, 2005, at 4:37 PM, Dave Colasurdo wrote:

> David Jencks wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Dave Colasurdo wrote:
>>> Quite frankly, I'm not sure I see the value of having multiple web 
>>> containers simultaneously active within geronimo.  Has anyone heard 
>>> of a  use case or user that is asking for this support?
>> I don't think there is any practical use for it outside of 
>> experimenting with both web containers at once.  It also makes 
>> running the tck much easier.
>>>   IMHO, I suspect the vast majority of users will choose a single 
>>> web container (at build or install time) and stick with it.  If 
>>> future requirements dictate a switch to a different container, then 
>>> laying down a new installation doesn't seem unreasonable.  In fact, 
>>> Geronimo doesn't currently even support incremental maintenance.  I 
>>> would think the use case for non-destructive upgrade would be much 
>>> more prevalent than changing internal components on the fly.
>>> While simultaneous active web containers would be a technical feat, 
>>> I'm really not sure the overhead and added confusion to users are 
>>> worth the payoff..  My $.02
>> I prefer to keep this as standard at this point to ensure that our 
>> architecture remains clean enough to support it.  I look forward to 
>> the installer being sophisticated enough to be able to include the 
>> correct components for only one web container.  At the moment, it 
>> includes all components and only starts selected ones.
> If there is no immediate practical use for it outside of TCK testing, 
> wouldn't it be beneficial to the users (who are hopefully flocking to 
> the newly certified J2EE server :>) ) if the default behavior was more 
> inline with their expectations rather than confuse them with behavior 
> that is somewhat confusing and that they will likely not be 
> leveraging?
> The changes to the installer seem like a reasonable plan.  How about 
> users that download the binary zip/tar images?  Shouldn't they also 
> have a simple default way to utilize only one web container.  It seems 
> this is what most users would want.  It appears that the current M5 
> default behavior is starting both web containers..

Well, what do you suggest?  At the moment the way to switch to a single 
web container is to copy 2 text files over 2 other text files.   
Instructions are in the M5 release notes.  The alternative to starting 
both web containers by default is to start neither: we can't play 
favorites.  We don't yet have a maintainable way of building 2 entirely 
separate distributions.  I hope we can get there by 1.0, but it's going 
to take a substantial revision of our assembly process to use the 
packaging plugin and the assembly plugin: even with sharing the 
configurations between distributions it will mean a very substantial 
increase in maintenance to ship 2 versions, and I am not at all sure it 
is worth the trouble if we can provide a single-container choice using 
the installer.

david jencks

View raw message