geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Shared Libs
Date Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:24:48 GMT
I'm not keen on the shared libs concept either, but people are  
familar with the feature from Tomcat.

I think we would get tons of emails from confused users if this  
feature is not on by default.  When it comes to exporting  
configurations, we could warn users that the application can see  
shared libraries and they will have to install they by hand on the  
target server.  Alternatively, we could allow the user to select the  
shared libs to include in the export, and then we we do an import ask  
the user if they want the jars added to the shared libs, or kept  

I think we should start with the first option as it is the easiest  
and hopefully someone will implement the second.


On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> I'm not so keen on the shared libs, because then we don't know what
> the dependencies are and it won't be easy to export a configuration
> with all the necessary metadata.  It might be possible to include a
> flag in the deployment plan saying "enable shared libs" and then if
> that's set we can refuse to export the configuration or set a special
> flag saying that the configuration has unknown dependencies.  But
> needing to enable the shared libs would make them a little harder to
> use.  I'm not sure what to think.
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> On 4/5/06, Dain Sundstrom <> wrote:
>> One new feature I'm working on for 1.1 is support for tomcat style
>> shared libs.  This creates a shared class loader visible to all j2ee
>> applications which contains shared/lib/*.jar and shared/classes/ to
>> the class loader.
>> Will this address your issues?
>> -dain
>> On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> I have a situation where I need to make several web modules
>>> dependent upon a large number of jars.  I'd like to add the jars to
>>> the Geronimo repo and add the dependencies into the plans for the
>>> web modules. However, most of the jars don't follow the maven
>>> naming convention because the names don't include a version (and
>>> I'd rather not rename all the jars).
>>> I know that there are changes being included in 1.1 to make the
>>> version in a reference optional.  However, I doubt that it is
>>> possible to reference a jar in the repo that doesn't contain any
>>> version.  Just thought I should ask in case it really is possible.
>>> I could see where this might be something users would like when
>>> they have picked up jars from various places which may or may not
>>> contain a version in the jar name.
>>> If it *is* possible to have a non-versioned jar in the repo ... how
>>> do we differentiate in geronimo 1.1 between a dependency on a non-
>>> versioned jar versus a dependency on the latest version of a jar
>>> (in case both are present).
>>> Thanks for the help,
>>> Joe
>>> --
>>> Joe Bohn
>>> joe.bohn at
>>> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he
>>> cannot lose."   -- Jim Elliot

View raw message