geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Colasurdo <>
Subject Re: differences between installer installation and tomcat/jetty installations
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:53:05 GMT
Erik Daughtrey wrote:
>  On Wednesday 01 February 2006 03:09, David Jencks wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 2006, at 9:08 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>> 1) In the 1.0 branch I noticed that an installer installation has
>>> geronimo/repository/geronimo/cars directory (containing approx 42
>>> MB of car files) but the tomcat & jetty assemblies don't have the
>>> car directory. Is this intended? 
> Yes
>>> When are car files in the repository used?
> During final processing, the ConfigInstaller runs which installs the cars 
> associated with the selected packs into the config-store. The ConfigInstaller 
> reads var/config/configure.xml to determine which cars need to be installed.
> Configure.xml is created by the assembly plugin, but contains
> variables to be replaced at install time to inform ConfigInstaller
> of which cars need to be installed.

Assuming these aren't needed after installation, can/should these files 
be deleted by the installer therefore saving 42M?  I know diskpace is 
cheap, though it is one of the measurements that gets used when 
comparisons are done against other application servers.

Does this directory need to be retained when advancedMode is true?

>> I think this is an artifact of the way the installer is working right
>> now, namely including a repo inside it and copying everything into
>> the server under construction, whether or not it is used.  I want it
>> to install only the stuff you select.
>>> 2) I also noticed that in the installer installation using the
>>> default options, the following files (that are installed for the
>>> jetty/tomcat assemblies) are not installed:
> I fixed this with the patch on GERONIMO-1518.  Originally,
> I had missed the dependency in project.xml and the files
> were not copied to target.
>>> geronimo/repository/jars/geronimo-javamail-transport-1.0.1-
>>> SNAPSHOT.jar
>>> geronimo/repository/jars/geronimo-mail-1.0.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>> What happens if the user initially does not select SMTP transport
>>> (the default) in the installer and then after installation changes
>>> their mind?  How are we expecting the user to get it installed?
> Interesting question. There are some interesting options here.
> 1. If one uses the installer in default mode, the situation mentioned will 
> occur. For instance, if javamail is not selected, then it will not be 
> installed and the easiest remedy is a reinstall.
> 2. If, however, one uses the -Dadvancedmode=true mode of the
> the installer, then it's possible to install the configuration, but have
> it inactive at runtime. It'll be in the config, but not running in the server.
> Of course, with item #1, it's possible to install everything and disable
> unwanted items in config.xml manually and achieve the same goal.
> 3. There's actually a third option that's not exposed well (yet?). One
> might install everything with the advanced installer then delete everything
> in config-store, modify configure.xml, run ConfigInstaller to get 
> a new configuration and modify config.xml accordingly.  Of course, this
> would be for very advanced folks.

In the future, it may be worth considering "late-feature addition".  The 
user can rerun the installer, it detects what is already installed and 
allows the user to select and install additional components.  Of course, 
I realize that izpack probably doesn't lend itself to this and am not 
suggesting this for any current release.  Just wanted to throw out the 
idea for the future.  For now, option 1 seems fine.

>> Due to my theory about (1), I think that these are simply left out of
>> the installers internal repo and so the mail config may not work.  As
>> noted in (1) in my opinion these should get copied into the server
>> under construction only if you select the mail configuration for
>> installation.
> 1518 accomplishes this.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>> Thanks,
>>> John

View raw message