geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: What's the Wiki story?
Date Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:57:59 GMT
I'm superimposing my thinking about plugins here so please course correct me if I'm heading
into a 
ditch.

Plugins are effectively a way to package a server configuration so it can be conveniently
shared 
across multiple server instances.  The easiest way to build one is to deploy an application
into 
Geronimo and then export its configuration as a CAR.  If I have something that is really interesting

I can take that item and share it with people through the Plugin Network which consists of

www.geronimoplugins.com today.  I'm not aware of others but I've heard through the grapevine
there 
are others in consideration.

That said, I end up with a car file that I can then redistribute which is made up of binary

elements.  From a Geronimo project perspective if there are elements we want to distribute
for users 
like the Samples, Directory or ServiceMix that are items hosted by Apache Projects we should
make 
them available from the ASF infrastructure.

For plugins that have non-ASF licensed code like Life-Ray, the cools calendar thing that someone

wants to hold the copyright on, a Hibernate plugin, etc. would have to be hosted external
the ASF 
and should be.  The responsibility of redistribution for those plugins would be on the site

redistributing them.  Also, tje documentation and support for those plugins would also be
on the 
site redistributing them.

I think it makes a lot of sense for the Apache Geronimo Project to keep a list of plugin providers

that people could then consult for additional plugins.

I don't recall if anyone has done any work to at least provide the minimal set of plugins
at Apache 
but I would suspect it wouldn't be hard and I suggest that it would be good to start with
the ones 
outlined above (all two of them :).

I think the plugin framework is really nice and I suspect we'll find issues that need to be
refined 
in terms of how flexible the system is for moving cars around different releases of Geronimo.

I hope this clarifies my thinking.

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Please distinguish between plugin source code, plugin binaries, and
> plugin documentation.  Which of these do you think should be hosted at
> Apache, not hosted at Apache, or split across providers?
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> On 6/12/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> See my other post.  I hit send too quickly.   I DO think we should 
>> host plugins at the ASF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> > I gather from what you're saying you don't think the Geronimo project
>> > should host any plugins?  How do others feel?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >    Aaron
>> >
>> > On 6/12/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> >> As you say since plugins are not owned by the Geronimo project (ASF),
>> >> not released by the Geronimo
>> >> project and are not under the oversight of the porject perhaps the
>> >> best thing to do is to put in an
>> >> HTML link pointing to www.GeronimoPlugins.com and that way that
>> >> project can manage the releases,
>> >> interdependncies, etc.  I think its a nice clean break.
>> >>
>> >> When Geronimo hosts its own plugins then it would make sense for us to
>> >> document them here.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think we should host documentation as part of the Geronimo
>> >> Project that is not under ASF
>> >> license.
>> >>
>> >> The plugin framework is part of Geronimo...the content is not and is
>> >> hosted externally.  I think
>> >> this is the division.
>> >>
>> >> Matt
>> >>
>> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >> > On 6/12/06, Hernan Cunico <hcunico@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> As far as I can see, plugins are part of Geronimo and they 
>> should be
>> >> >> in the 1.1 documentation space.
>> >> >
>> >> > I diasgree.  Plugins will be versioned separately from Geronimo, and
>> >> > will not all be developed by the Geronimo team.  What will we do 
>> with
>> >> > the Geronimo 1.1 documentation if Plugin Foo is at version 1.0 when
>> >> > Geronimo 1.1 ships, but Plugin Foo goes through version 1.1, 1.2, 
>> and
>> >> > 1.3 before Geronimo 1.2 ships?  Will we constantly be updating the
>> >> > Geronimo 1.1 documentation?  I don't think that makes sense.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think there should be a Plugins space with the Plugin Foo
>> >> > documentation.  In the Geronimo 1.1 documentation we can include a
>> >> > list of known available plugins with references to their individual
>> >> > documentation pages, or we can actually repeat some common usage of
>> >> > popular plugins, but I don't think we should try to capture the
>> >> > current state of all plugins (and either have it get terribly 
>> outdated
>> >> > or need frequent changes to the "finished" parts of the 1.1
>> >> > documentation).
>> >> >
>> >> >> The plan is, as I proposed several times in earlier emails, to
move
>> >> >> all the content from MoinMoin to
>> >> >> Confluence. Most of the content in the MoinMoin is outdated or
>> >> >> duplicated, the docs that are still
>> >> >> valid should be moved to a section within the new structure in
>> >> >> confluence. Those topics that don't
>> >> >> fit either the User's or Developer's guide should go into the 
>> Geronimo
>> >> >> SandBox space which is
>> >> >> version independent. This space should hold historical data like

>> the
>> >> >> logo contest for example.
>> >> >
>> >> > OK.  Who's going to do that migration?  Also, I have to say, I don't
>> >> > think that putting documentation in a different Wiki is going to
>> >> > automatically keep it up to date.  It's a nice opportunity to clean
>> >> > up, but I imagine we'll need a regular cleaning process if we don't
>> >> > want our Wiki to get out of date.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >    Aaron
>> >> >
>> >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >> >> > I'd like to add some documentation for specific plugins to
a
>> >> Wiki.  I
>> >> >> > don't know if the plan is to migrate pretty much everything
to
>> >> >> > Confluence or only keep our main documentation there and use
>> >> MoinMoin
>> >> >> > for the rest or what.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Still, if we're documenting available plugins, that's probably
>> >> more or
>> >> >> > less project documentation, and should go in Confluence anyway.
>> >> Could
>> >> >> > someone with admin access create an Apache Geronimo Plugins

>> space?
>> >> >> > (The plugins will be on a separate release track from Geronimo

>> so I
>> >> >> > don't think the plugin docs should necessarily go in the 1.1

>> docs.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >> >    Aaron
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message