Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
In-Reply-To: <4367815B.5050604@gmail.com>
References: <74e15baa0510301855k1b682c36i238385ff84efdea1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43659339.4080304@hogstrom.org>
 <74e15baa0510310453s5171d75fr15d9179d1578d7e9@mail.gmail.com>
 <43677780.2020301@earthlink.net> <43677CAE.2000204@earthlink.net>
 <4367815B.5050604@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <3DFDE799-E5DB-4B15-8F20-220CDF079AAF@iq80.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
Subject: Re: Remote Deployment
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:10:27 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

Guys, I think we are getting a little to far ahead of Aaron's  
proposal.  Having a servlet to do remote deployment would be a huge  
step forward for Geronimo, given that remote deployment currently  
doesn't work.  Sure in the future it would be nice to support remote  
deployment with out requiring a web container and more granulized  
update support, but for now how about get the basics working?

Aaron,

Why does the console have a different name in Tomcat and Jetty?   
Also, will this be a pure http(s) deployment tool or will the tool  
use both the JMX-RMI and http(s) protocols?  I would prefer a pure  
http client so it can work in the maximum environments?

-dain

On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:53 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:

> Please keep in mind the tooling scenarios for this as well.
>
> I would eventually like like to see some type of granulized update  
> support.   For example, if a user is developing a large application  
> and testing on a remote server, if a single file in a module is  
> changed, it would be quite an overhead for the entire application  
> to have to be repackaged and sent over the network.  We need to  
> think about being able to send partial updates to a remote server.
>
> Sachin
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> +1
>> I was thinking the same thing.  If implemented as a servlet it  
>> should be independent of the console.   What is used for local  
>> deploy should be the same as remote deploy.
>> Joe
>> Dave Colasurdo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forget about multiple web containers.  The issue is, I know  
>>>> there's a
>>>> servlet o.a.g.RemoteDeployerServlet running in some web app in
>>>> Geronimo.  What is the URL to contact it?  To start with, you  
>>>> need to
>>>> determine which web application it's in (since we already use
>>>> different names for the console for Jetty/Tomcat you can't just
>>>> hardcode a name), and then you need to determine what the URL is to
>>>> access that web application, which means inspecting its list of
>>>> connectors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is remote deployment unique to the web console?  Shouldn't remote  
>>> deployment also be possible from the command line or  
>>> programatically via JMX.  Projects/products that embed Geronimo  
>>> may wish to remove the web console altogether in an attempt to  
>>> use G as a hidden embedded server for their application with only  
>>> their preset configurations.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a new non-webcontainer specific ( not specific to jetty  
>>> or tomcat) file transfer web application that is not tied to the  
>>> console should be created.
>>>
>>>
>