geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: micro-G modules(configs)
Date Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:52:05 GMT
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.

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