geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: micro-G modules(configs)
Date Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:35:00 GMT

On Oct 5, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> I think we need to keep enough in there that the command-line deploy
> tool still works.  It looks like online-deployer is empty (or else I
> would have said to keep that), but I think j2ee-security is required
> for the JMX remoting used by the deploy tool.  Without this, I think
> you'll have to mangle the repository contents and config.xml by hand
> in order to ever have more than "Micro G" (ick).
>
> Anyway, I would also be in favor of separating the specs from RMI  
> naming.
>
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
>
> P.S. Maybe we should whack the online-deployer module and rename
> "j2ee-security" to just "security" or something.

Online-deployer is empty just like the rest of the configs that are  
servers.  It relies on manifest classpath and the configuration it  
contains.  IIRC online-deployer.car is the same file as  
deployer.jar.  I guess you're right that a little more might be  
good.  I was figuring that being able to add plugins might be  
enough.  What connects to the plugin installer?

thanks
david jencks

>
> On 10/5/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I marked the ones to remove IMO  with an X
>>
>> I seem to have a more extreme view of "micro" than you :-)
>> I'd also prefer to pull the specs out of rmi-naming into a separate
>> config so we can swap in the jee5 ones more easily.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The following modules are currently included in micro-G.
>> > What of these should we attempt to remove yet from micro-G?
>> >
>> > X connector-deployer
>> > geronimo-gbean-deployer
>> > X hot-deployer
>> > X j2ee-deployer
>> > X j2ee-security
>> > X j2ee-server
>> > j2ee-system
>> > X online-deployer
>> > rmi-naming
>> > X sharedlib
>> > shutdown
>> > X transaction
>> > X unavailable-client-deployer
>> > X unavailable-ejb-deployer
>> > X unavailable-webservices-deployer
>> >
>> > I'd like to be able to remove the unavailable* deployers but at the
>> > moment I think they are pretty tightly tied to the j2ee-deployer
>> > which IIUC we need to keep since it is really not just for j2ee
>> > deployments. IIRC I attempted to remove j2ee-deployer earlier and
>> > discovered that I needed this to be able to deploy plugins into
>> > micro-G.  I think the other j2ee* modules are likewise required for
>> > more than just j2ee content.  Is this true?
>> >
>> > I think we might be able to remove hot-deployer ... any thoughts?
>> > My only concern is that if we get too fine grained then it gets
>> > difficult to build up the image to be equivalent for little-G or
>> > higher.  Right now to get from micro-G to little-G you need to
>> > deploy both the tomcat or jetty plugin and the corresponding
>> > deployer.  Removing hot-deployer will add another item to the
>> > list.  Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Joe
>> >
>> >
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message