geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-1152) Connector portlet does not display all WebConnectors
Date Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:43:21 GMT
I'm putting this handling into the web access log, so you can see what
I have in mind.  Should be in soon.  Basically, if there's only one
"Foo" container deployed, then the category is "Foo", but if there are
more than one, then it's "Foo (container name)" where "Foo" is
currently Tomcat or Jetty but could also be HNC or whatever.  There is
no fixed limit, it just iterates the arrays that are returned.

Aaron

On 11/14/05, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I agree with this approach for V1 if we can keep the user's view
> restricted to just the container or containers that are installed and
> give no hint of the container that is not installed.
>
> However, I'm not sure of the longevity of such an implementation beyond
> V1.  If we really intend to support multiple containers (where multiple
> is > 2) then to do it right thing we would need to do something more
> dynamic than just listing all of elements and actions under just 2
> categories (as you mentioned in your response).  So the structure might
> look more like this:
>
> Tomcat A
>    - HTTP
>    - HTTPS
>    - AJP
>
> Tomcat B
>    - HTTP
>    - HTTPS
>    - AJP
>
> Jetty A
>    - HTTP
>    - HTTPS
>    - AJP
>
> Hot New Container(HNC) A
>    - HTTP
>    - HTTPS
>    - AJP
>
> Create new Tomcat connectors: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP for Tomcat A
> Create new Tomcat connectors: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP for Tomcat B
> Create new Jetty connectors:  HTTP, HTTPS, AJP for Jetty A
> Create new HNC connectors: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP for HNC A
>
> Of course there's multiple different ways to provide the UI (including
> just one set of commands and letting the user pick the target) ... but
> you get the idea.
>
> We could even choose to make the structure less tightly coupled with
> similar components and more integrated with the capability being
> delivered by the individual component.  That would ensure extensibility
> and give the provider of the component a mechanism to differentiate
> itself from a similar component.  This would be at the expense of a
> single management view for all elements of the same type. Each approach
>   has its pro's and con's.
>
> Finally, I think that this is an issue that affects more than just web
> containers and their management.  The Web Container is just the current
> example of this issue.  I think we need to build a structure that can
> handle multiple instances of any component that Geronimo can bundle in
> an install image if we are truly building a Geronimo Admin Console and
> not a Geronimo J2EE Admin Console.  Of course this is all way past V1
> ... it's just something we should keep in mind as we address the
> multiple container situation now.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I think for 1.0, we'd like to support multiple web containers in the
> > console, for example, with a simple hierarchy in the connector list
> > screen:
> >
> > Tomcat
> >   - HTTP
> >   - HTTPS
> >   - AJP
> > Jetty
> >   - HTTP
> >   - HTTPS
> >   - AJP
> >
> > Create new Tomcat connector: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP
> > Create new Jetty connector: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP
> >
> > Then if you only have one, it would show only half the links.  We
> > should have the capability to look up an array of WebManager objects
> > and then fetch the associated containers and connectors from each, we
> > just have to implement the display for that.  And perhaps enhance the
> > WebConnector to return a product name so we can create a view like the
> > above without hardcoding checks based on class names or anything.
> > This should not be super-difficult, we just need to tweak the data
> > passed from the portlet to the JSPs and update the JSPs to render
> > appropriately.
> >
> > There has been talk about some day making the console fully generic,
> > such that GBeans have associated portlets and the console is built
> > dynamically based on the content of the server.  But that needs much
> > more thought and is waaay not in scope for 1.0.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 11/14/05, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Ah ... that's the heart of the issue.  Based upon the current console
> >>capability, it has primary been a J2EE application server console. From
> >>what I can tell that's primarily been Geronimo's focus as well. All of
> >>the J2EE application servers I've seen have one web container to manage
> >>and host all of the web applications, one ejb container, etc...   and I
> >>think this is what the user will expect if we call ourselves a J2EE
> >>application server.  This may or may not be in line with what we want
> >>... but in my opinion (at least for the console) this is the current
> >>state of affairs and what I think our users will expect.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, if this console is to be a general purpose Geronimo
> >>(ie. G-Bean management) console then I think the organization and the
> >>functionality would be very different.  We would want the console to
> >>focus on the management of GBeans (no matter what they contained).  We
> >>could build a special configuration or set of configurations to be used
> >>as an J2EE Application Server with it's own console (in addition to the
> >>Geronimo console). Or, we could make the Geronimo console general
> >>purpose enough such that it could be easily extended with management
> >>capability for any hosted component.  If that's the case we might have a
> >>"Tomcat Application view" and a "Jetty Application view" rather than
> >>simply an "Application view".  We would also ensure that the console
> >>could not only host multiple web containers, but also multiple EJB
> >>containers, portlet containers, databases, etc...  There would be no
> >>structure or limit on the types and variety of components.
> >>
> >>I may be speaking heresy here ... but I'm just struggling myself with
> >>understanding what we are trying to build and how the console can best
> >>provide management assistance for the end user of Geronimo.
> >>
> >>I'm ready for the flaming arrows now and to have my head shaped
> >>appropriately .... that will be for the good as well.  :-)  I want to be
> >>on the same page with everybody else but I'm not sure what that page is.
> >>
> >>Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> >>
> >>>Is the console managing Gernonimo or Jetty?  I am under the impression
> >>>that it is managing Geronimo as such and not any web container.  Correct
> >>>me if I am wrong.
> >>>
> >>>I do not know if it this Connector portlet improvement is ahead of its
> >>>time.  I came across some "//todo: handle multiple" comments (against
> >>>WebManagers and WebContiners within) in Connector portlet and went ahead
> >>>to address those.  If the console is for Geronimo, then this improvement
> >>>is definitely not ahead of its time.
> >>>
> >>>-Vamsi
> >>>On 11/11/05, *Joe Bohn* <joe.bohn@earthlink.net
> >>><mailto:joe.bohn@earthlink.net>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    Is this patch adding the ability to add/display tomcat web connectors
> >>>    from a Web Console that is managing Jetty?  If so, then I'm not sure
we
> >>>    want to add this capability just yet.  The entire console needs to be
> >>>    reworked if we decide to support multiple containers simultaneously from
> >>>    a single console.
> >>>
> >>>    We will probably want this at some point in time so we should not lose
> >>>    it.  But I'm concerned that adding it now might just cause confusion
> >>>    for
> >>>    the user.  It would be one of the only portlets addressing management
of
> >>>      more than one container.  Most other portlets that work with the web
> >>>    container only interact with the container that is hosting the console
> >>>    application itself.
> >>>
> >>>    Also, nobody has come up with a scenario where a user would want to run
> >>>    two web containers.  If we do include this then we should at least
> >>>    ensure that the option to add tomcat connectors is not present for a
> >>>    jetty only configuration and vice-versa (not sure if the patch does
> >>>    this).
> >>>
> >>>    Nice work but it might be a little ahead of its time.
> >>>
> >>>    Joe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    Vamsavardhana Reddy (JIRA) wrote:
> >>>     >      [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1152?page=all
]
> >>>     >
> >>>     > Vamsavardhana Reddy updated GERONIMO-1152:
> >>>     > ------------------------------------------
> >>>     >
> >>>     >     Attachment: connector-moreformbuttons.patch
> >>>     >
> >>>     > connector-moreformbuttons.patch:  As suggested by Matt, I have
> >>>    added "Reset", "Clear" and "Cancel" buttons to the forms for editing
> >>>    HTTP and HTTPS configurations.
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     >>Connector portlet does not display all WebConnectors
> >>>     >>----------------------------------------------------
> >>>     >>
> >>>     >>         Key: GERONIMO-1152
> >>>     >>         URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1152
> >>>     >>     Project: Geronimo
> >>>     >>        Type: Bug
> >>>     >>  Components: console
> >>>     >>    Versions: 1.0-M5
> >>>     >> Environment: Win XP, Sun JDK 1.4.2_08
> >>>     >>    Reporter: Vamsavardhana Reddy
> >>>     >> Attachments: connector-moreformbuttons.patch,
> >>>    connector-withdeleteconfirmation.patch , connector.patch
> >>>     >>
> >>>     >>Under WebServer management page, Connector portlet displays
only
> >>>    jetty web connectors and provides links to add only jetty
> >>>    connectors.  It does not display tomcat web connectors nor does it
> >>>    provide links to add tomcat connectors.
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>
> >>>    --
> >>>    Joe Bohn
> >>>    joe.bohn@earthlink.net <mailto:joe.bohn@earthlink.net>
> >>>
> >>>    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
> >>>    lose."   -- Jim Elliot
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Joe Bohn
> >>joe.bohn@earthlink.net
> >>
> >>"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
> >>lose."   -- Jim Elliot
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Joe Bohn
> joe.bohn@earthlink.net
>
> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
> lose."   -- Jim Elliot
>

Mime
View raw message