geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Date Tue, 02 May 2006 18:17:47 GMT
I'm a bit concerned about this issue impacting the 1.1 release.  There are many questions that
need 
to be resolved but I expect that investigating Apache Infra, what other sites will there be,
etc.

I think we can all agree that the feature is awesome.  So, that said it needs to go into the
release 
and I hope that is not in dispute.

The primary issue is "Where is the site?"  Right now the only site that is available is 
www.geronimoplugins.com.  So, that as a default is fine with me.  We should have something
similar 
at the ASF for Apache software that we decide to make available.  Quite honestly, the work
to build, 
test and release a plugin from the project seems pretty tedious to me and I expect that we
as a 
project won't like that revving these things.

I propose we add the ability to have the server get a list from the geronimo.apache.org website.

For now the default remains www.geronimoplugins.com until we have a better solution.

Remember, this is not a dependency on other sites but rather an optional feature that allows
for 
extension points.  The server DOES NOT require the plugin function.  It is an optional feature.

My perspective as the 1.1 release manager is we leave it as is except for the ability to get
a list 
from our site (or perhaps the maven ecosystem).

I think we're all excited about the feature.  Let's make this happen.

I'll +1 my own suggestion.


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> So it would be possible to construct a plugin list in the console from
> a variety of sources, or from a source containing pointers to other
> sources.  I would like to minimize the number of network connections
> required to generate a single console page (to avoid console hangs if
> one of 11 sites is presently offline).  So of these approaches, I'd
> prefer if the "central site" (Apache or whatever) maintained the
> master list of metadata and the console just downloaded that and used
> it to render the available list, and only hit the other sites for the
> actual downloads.
> 
> So there are two issues if we go that way:
> 
> 1) I think we still want a consolidated web-based plugin list for
> people who want to browse the available plugins without doing it
> through the console of a running Geronimo server.  This could
> potentially be auto-generated from the master metadata, so long as
> that doesn't make it look terrible.
> 
> 2) We still need a place to host non-Apache plugins for people who
> don't have an appropriate site of their own.
> 
> One possibility is to keep the geronimoplugins.com site where it is to
> serve those duties, but maintain the master plugin metadata list at
> Apache.  Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for
> maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of people
> with all kinds of licenses?  (So long as it's only the metadata it's
> providing, of course.)  One advantage to this kind of approach is that
> we could put a hash for each plugin in the master metadata file and
> then you'd have to break 2 servers to swap in a corrupted file.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> 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 plugin
>> 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 is
>> 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
>> accepting.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> 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 <matt@hogstrom.org> 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
>> >> www.geronimoplugins.com 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
>> >> http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the
>> >> www.geronimoplugins.com 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 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.
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message