geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Thoughts on splitting out "core" from, well, products & other stuff
Date Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:01:18 GMT

On Feb 14, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I like the idea, but he devil is in the details.  Before we move  
> forward, I'd like to look that devil in he eyes.

Indeed.  I don't understand what this would give anyone except a more  
complicated build structure.  What I think would be substantially  
more useful and not introduce any more build complexity is a  
dependency diagram so you could easily see the answer to the  
question, if I include module/configuration X what do I need to make  
it work?  Right now I think you can answer this my making an assembly  
that includes X and seeing what you get in it but a picture would be  
a lot easier to think about.

Part of this is that I pretty much regard anything above the kernel  
as optional... in particular connectors, transaction manager,  
security, and naming.  We just haven't succeeded in actually making  
them optional yet.

david jencks

> -dain
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> What would folks think of (in principle, not right now) splitting out
>> the core Geronimo components from anything that wraps a 3rd-party
>> product/project?  So have one area for modules like kernel, security,
>> core, system, etc. and a separate area for modules like Jetty,  
>> Tomcat,
>> ActiveMQ, Directory, jUDDI, etc.  I guess mainly to draw the
>> distinction between what's really part of the infrastructure and
>> what's really "optional packages" that can be added on top (and I'm
>> talking about "optional" in a non-J2EE-server sense where you start
>> with literally nothing but the infrastructure and add only waht you
>> want, or something like that).  So we'd still pull a lot of that in
>> for our "J2EE" builds, but it would make a clearer distinction for
>> anyone who wanted a more custom build.
>> Thanks,
>>     Aaron

View raw message