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: domain of ammulder@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.197 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=mMoRKRp3l97d5d6vjL6NA/M9CixW+gWDGEMdDgSxCvVfvR/r1qj+PUIIfyOVKhiit9rNIYgqv6fEbBwIyVmk57ewyhYhw2TjyoVawBpX+vWW9NGCDGMyutnJvLkPjh3GF+pXtQw5ys8InBMdymugu2szpoZCryQn61hIFRBbzwU=
Message-ID: <74e15baa0511140859p338a9d67y5af58ccb48f46fd0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:59:58 -0500
From: Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
Sender: ammulder@gmail.com
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-1152) Connector portlet does not
 display all WebConnectors
In-Reply-To: <43788279.5080100@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1406805628.1131708483130.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
	 <4374A51E.6060200@earthlink.net>
	 <22d56c4d0511132203y293af0f5k2825b614a3cef489@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43788279.5080100@earthlink.net>

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.=20
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.  Correc=
t
> > 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 ahea=
d
> > to address those.  If the console is for Geronimo, then this improvemen=
t
> > 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 connecto=
rs
> >     from a Web Console that is managing Jetty?  If so, then I'm not sur=
e 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 l=
ose
> >     it.  But I'm concerned that adding it now might just cause confusio=
n
> >     for
> >     the user.  It would be one of the only portlets addressing manageme=
nt of
> >       more than one container.  Most other portlets that work with the =
web
> >     container only interact with the container that is hosting the cons=
ole
> >     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=
=3Dall ]
> >      >
> >      > 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 editin=
g
> >     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 canno=
t
> >     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
>