geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Micro-G
Date Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:49:50 GMT

I've done some work on a new assembly that I've nicknamed "Micro-G" (I 
know .. not very creative).  The name that I'm using under 
geronimo/assemblies is "geronimo-framework".   This is intended to be a 
new foundational assembly from which any customized Geronimo assembly 
could be built by installing plugins we would provide (starting with 
tomcat and jetty plugins).

Hopefully this could help us eliminate the need to provide so many 
canned configurations with each release.  I'm pretty sure we would 
probably still want to provide at least one full j2ee server 
configuration that we certified against, but we could potentially drop 
the little-G assemblies and hopefully avoid additional future assemblies 
based upon different combinations of components in the works.

So far, I've been doing this on my local image.  I would like to get 
this code (incomplete as it currently is) checked into trunk to better 
manage the changes and to share the effort.  Is this considered a 
"controversial change"?   Should I first provide a patch as it currently 
stands so that folks can comment on it prior to a commit(ala RTC)?

I'm inclined to just commit the code since it is relatively self 
contained at the moment, safe, and can be easily reverted.  I think the 
only controversial change thus far might be that I updated the default 
port selections on the tomcat configuration so that if you install a 
tomcat plugin on this framework assembly you will end up with the same 
port configurations currently available on our existing tomcat 
distributions.  Of course, this means that the default ports are no 
longer conducive to running two web servers in the same configuration.

Should I go ahead and commit this new assembly and config updates?

Joe


Mime
View raw message