geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Colasurdo <davec...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: How many web containers? was Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-1152) Connector portlet does not display all WebConnectors
Date Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:35:04 GMT


Matt Hogstrom wrote:



> How about for milestones and versions we agree that the delivery 
> mechanism is teh installer and it will allow the user to choose the web 
> container of their choice and only install the required components for 
> that configuration.  This provides a nice and neat package for users and 
> is consumable.  We could also provide a single tarball / unzip type of 
> option that is just like the daily builds and we make the assumption 
> that people that choose this option understand that they want this 
> configuration and will work within it.
> 
> So, to sum up, for 1.0 we have 2 deliver mechanisms: the installers and 
> a single tarball download.
> 

I like the idea of having an installer that allows for selection of the 
web container (assuming it only lays down the applications and 
configurations associated with that webcontainer).

I suspect that many projects/products/ISVs that embed a milestone or 
version (v1.0) of Geronimo will want the simple, quick installation 
behavior of the tarball installation.  They can easily pre-set their 
configuration to jetty or geronimo.  However, I believe the presence of 
the unselected webcontainer's applications and configurations in the 
file system and their visibility in web console will still create 
confusion with their end users.

IMHO, the unnecessary applications and configurations are the main 
problem..

If the installer (at install time) can create an image that does not 
contain the other web containers apps and config and the resulting image 
can then be tar'd up and embedded by other projects/products/ISVs then 
this also seems like an acceptable alternative.

My $.02

-Dave-


Mime
View raw message