geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Colasurdo <>
Subject Re: More port conflicts
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:37:21 GMT

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..


> thanks
> david jencks
>> Thanks
>> Dave
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> I know I keep beating on this but IMO this is another problem of the 
>>> multiple container configuration and single image delivery.  It would 
>>> be equally problematic to attempt to start both the tomcat & jetty 
>>> console or welcome configurations simultaneously even in just a 
>>> single container configuration.  I think we will have problems like 
>>> this until we come to the point where we deliver two images that 
>>> include only the peripheral configurations that are applicable to the 
>>> particular image (one for tomcat and one for jetty).
>>> I'm willing to eat my words if I hear a proposal on how we can avoid 
>>> problems like these.  I just don't see a clear solution to problems 
>>> with our current approach unless we get a lot more sophisticated with 
>>> conversion capability (and even then I think the user will be 
>>> confused when s/he sees multiple configurations for the same 
>>> applications even if they all work).
>>> Joe
>>> anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>    I have built M5 from the source. I am running the
>>>> default configuration (Jetty and Tomcat). I start The
>>>> following configurations :
>>>> org/apache/geronimo/applications/Welcome/Tomcat and 
>>>> org/apache/geronimo/Console/Tomcat     Both theses configurations 
>>>> get started on port
>>>> 8080. Even though Tomcat is running on port 8090:     Before I 
>>>> investigate further, is this a known
>>>> problem?
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Anita
>>>>            __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC 
>>>> Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

View raw message