geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hernan Cunico <hcun...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Date Mon, 01 May 2006 23:45:17 GMT
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
>> >
>>
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message