geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: Questions about site
Date Tue, 02 May 2006 15:27:43 GMT
Your point about the number of available plugins is valid.  One way to mitigate that is to
have the 
internal plugin component enhanced to use the list of plugin sites so they can all be searched
and a 
comprehensive list of plugins from all sites presented to the user with the source of the
displayed alongside the plugin.  Then it doesn't matter how many or where the sites are. 
If the 
sites are up then the content will be displayed, if they're down then the content is invisible.

This way the user doesn't have to iterate through the sites individually which is a problem
that we 
have today regardless of what the default is.

Would this enhancement resolve the issues as Geronimo can be the default, the user's life
simplified and the number and location of the sites is not the primary issue.  The site's
that have 
the content would be visible next to teh plugin so the user can select the one they want.

Another enhancement would be for the plugin manger to list and display an optional license
file that 
is included in the plugin so users would be able to get that information about what license
they are 


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
> Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
> We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
> entries, or a repository containing 120 entries.  What makes sense?
> To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers
> the best selection to the user.
> If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly,
> we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who
> want to help out.  We could also move much of the site content to an
> Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as
> images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser.
> There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit
> organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to
> ultimately transition the site to such an organization.  Another
> recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be
> updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases),
> which is also fine.
> Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core
> offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site
> for downloads of Apache components.  This is a method to make the
> widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components
> available to Geronimo users.
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
>> I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions.
>> * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill.  I 
>> believe their availability
>> requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is 
>> currently available for the
>> Geronimo Plugins Site.
>> * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build 
>> the server.  I think there is
>> a different constituency of people that would be depending on 
>> availability.
>> * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there 
>> are other places to get the
>> information contained on their site.
>> Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to 
>> life.  I also think the
>> is a great way to distribute a variety of 
>> material that is non-ASF licensed.
>>   However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default
>> and have the 
>> as an alternate site in the
>> dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up.
>> I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and 
>> we need an ASF option as the
>> default.
>> Matt
>> David Jencks wrote:
>> > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see
>> > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio,
>> > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of
>> > non-asl compatible stuff.  Just as there is an apache maven repo that
>> > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache
>> > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
>> >
>> > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content?
>> > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a
>> > server, so the process of building the server for your application can
>> > be somewhat integrated into your build process.
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > david jencks
>> >
>> > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>> >
>> >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the site as
>> >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>> >> page.  This was introduced in
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> >> Where is the source for the site?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >

View raw message