geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Date Tue, 02 May 2006 00:02:45 GMT
+10000 to "First, I would really like to see and participate in the
discussions before seeing the changes already implemented.".

I guess the idea is similar (same?) as people putting up sites for
their Eclipse plugins. So +1 from me.

+1 to set up an ASF site for "our" plugins and make that the default.
Where "our" implies not just Geronimo but any other ASF project that
want to do a plugin as well. Just like the LDAP one. I can think of an
Axis2/Tuscany/Synapse/Ode/etc... plugins for automatic deploy of our
artifacts.

-- dims


On 5/1/06, Hernan Cunico <hcunico@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the physical location of the
plugin server.
>
> We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is to DEPLOY.
>
> For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to be good for installing
some
> things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move everything to plugins,
then I
> think it is a bad move.
>
> We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo.  We could separate into
groups such
> as (I am intentionally not including resources):
>
> 1. Geronimo modules
> 2. Sample applications
> 3. User applications
> 4. Vendor applications
>
> This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps to express my point.
Following
> the order from the list:
>
> Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as plugins may be OK
if these are
> hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way to distribute
a patch/update
> to the single server installation users (if you have many servers this is not a viable
solution).
>
> We develop/integrate the modules and samples so we provide, as a deployment alternative,
the Apache
> Geronimo plugins site. When fully documented, it ends up being a working sample site
for configuring
> your own plugins site.
>
> But it would not feel right if you need to install the LDAP module (to give just an example)
and you
> have to go outside the ASF, a different server from where you downloaded the Geronimo
binary, to get
> part of the Apache Geronimo standard functionality.
>
> If not hosted at the ASF, how would we ensure server availability, performance and maintenance?
>
> In terms of user applications, I think it is very  unlikely that this will became the
method of
> choice for  installing everyday applications. In a production environment, it is very
likely that
> the command line tool will be the most popular alternative.
>
> As for vendors applications, if you build your custom solution around Apache Geronimo
it is probably
> that you will distribute it all in one package (Apache Geronimo included). Just like
with the
> Geronimo modules example, plugins may be a good alternative for distributing patches/updates,
but we
> wouldn't call them plugins anymore would we!?
>
> In this case the vendor should choose to have their own plugins site implementing the
security (if
> needed) to match the appropriate downloads depending on the licensing and sensitivity
of the plugins
> to be installed.
>
> Two final thoughts. First, I would really like to see and participate in the discussions
before
> seeing the changes already implemented. Second and last, the whole deployment strategy
should be
> revised, including the repository. Having too many options does not make the things easier.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion?  Please,
> > let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion.  Can you
> > describe your position?
> >
> > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
> > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site.  But my understanding of the
> > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
> > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure.  To be as inclusive as
> > possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the
> > primary plugin repository needs to be separate.  We really want to
> > offer our users the best of all available plugins.
> >
> > Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source
> > code.  The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by
> > Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those
> > builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However,
> > the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the
> > packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside
> > the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins.
> >
> > And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons
> > to Geronimo.  I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo
> > features or distribution model.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    Aaron
> >
> > On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I do not agree.  I do not think that we should have any sites that are
> >> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default.  I do admit that
> >> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
> >> matter further.
> >>
> >> Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> >> > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically.  The
> >> > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
> >> > wants to setup a site they can.  All I see us deciding is what sites
> >> > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by
> >> default.
> >> >
> >> > -dain
> >> >
> >> > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >> >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jrsisson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com
site
> >> >>>> as a
> >> >>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
> >> page.
> >> >>>> This was introduced in
> >> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I have a few questions:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list?
 I
> >> >>>> haven't
> >> >>>> been able to find much at all.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and
> >> discussions
> >> >>> at TSSJS and so on.  Though I think it was covered in some detail
in
> >> >>> the vision and goals writeup.  I need to do a better job of
> >> describing
> >> >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until
it
> >> >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup
with
> >> >>> some walkthroughs and so on.  But I'll send out some documentation
on
> >> >>> it later today.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
> >> >> community forums.  This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No.  Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
> >> >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever.  We really need a central
site
> >> >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
> >> >>> open source and non-open source plugins.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> The hosting location is an issue.  I think this needs discussion
> >> and if
> >> >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
> >> >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate.
 I
> >> >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
> >> >> personal site.  We need consensus on this.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Where is the source for the site?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in
the
> >> >>> Geronimo SVN tree.  To make a configuration into a plugin, you
just
> >> >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin
has
> >> >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built.  However, as
new
> >> >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
> >> >>> source is at Apache.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site.  It's not open
> >> >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
> >> >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who
want
> >> >>> to work on the site.  And the web site really isn't the important
> >> part
> >> >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> This gets a -1 from me.  Any links off our portal should pass muster
> >> >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
> >> >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope
> >> that the
> >> >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
> >> >> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc).  If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else
is
> >> >> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus,
> >> albeit
> >> >> with great dismay.  The plugin idea is great, but the way in which
> >> this
> >> >> has gone about is not community focused.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big
> >> should go
> >> >> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
> >> >> implementing it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to hear what others think about this.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jeff
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>


--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

Mime
View raw message