geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Colasurdo <davec...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: More port conflicts
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2005 02:41:02 GMT


David Jencks wrote:
> 
> 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.

Concerning the non-installer images..

Hmmm.. I guess one of the problems is that many folks will not view the 
release notes and just try to use the the application server ( I am 
guilty of this).  Some initial thoughts that come to mind to address this:

Binary Distributions (assuming now that G is certified there will be 
more frequent binary images available) - I suspect the audience for 
these binaries will primarily be users and not G developers..

1) Default to no webcontainer and spell out in BIG BOLD COLORED LETTERS 
ON THE DOWNLOAD SITE that you need to choose a webcontainer via the 
config files. If the server is started w/o a webcontainer, spit out yet 
another reminder message..

2) Have a separate binary image for both the Jetty and Tomcat 
webcontainers.  I'm not suggesting biting off the whole task of revising 
the assembly process but rather just merely having two binaries each 
with a separate set of config files (config.xml, config.list).  This 
could even be a post-build step done on the common image. This isn't 
very technically interesting but clearly communicates to users that 
there are two separate environments and they select the download that 
they want.  Of course, this goes away if/when the assembly revision is 
complete.

3) Have no default config in the binaries.  Have the jetty and tomcat 
config files available as a separate download (right on the same page as 
the binary images).  Clearly document that one of the containers needs 
to be chosen.  (I don't like this option)..

4) Default the binary distribution to one of the web containers.  You 
can use MagicGball to decide which one :>) Clearly indicate on the web 
download site that this can easily be changed by updating the config files..

While none of these options are too technically exciting, they do 
address the problem of users inadvertently starting G with multiple web 
containers and getting confused. We don't want users to have a bad first 
impression..

Source Tree distributions

Can't there be a simple argument or property that is specified at build 
time to denote which webcontainer (or both) will be used.  The build 
will then seed the resulting image with the correct copy of config.list 
and config.xml..  Again this doesn't address the major revision of the 
assembly process but provides a simple way to create an image that has 
the webcontainer(s) config that you want.  Hmmm.. perhaps this is 
overkill as developers should already know about config.list and 
config.xml..

Hope I haven't beat this issue to death, just want to try to keep it as 
simple as possible for users...

Thanks

> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message