geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vamsavardhana Reddy" <>
Subject Re: Improve 'Geronimo' Development
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:33:19 GMT
Testing code changes in G was and still is a painfully long process.
Testing changes to admin console is ok(?) to some extent.  I use Eclipse for
development.  Some changes could be tested quickly while using remote debug,
but, you can not be sure which ones and once the IDE complains "Hot code
replacement failed" or you disconnect the debugger, the server needs to be
built again.  Sometimes a build will fail since Eclipse knocks-out xml-beans
classes and at this stage the only option is to do a rebuild.  We should
also consider some improvements to the build process so that the module that
is modified can be specified as a parameter to the build command and it will
build only those modules/configs that need to be built for the changes to
get reflected in the server.  IMHO, any improvement in this aspect of G (to
be able to test changes quickly) will have a dramatic improvement in the
productivity of G Developers.


On 11/3/06, Sachin Patel <> wrote:
> So since I've been working on Geronimo, one of the most annoying things
> developing Geronimo in an IDE is the overhead involved between modifing code
> and being able to test the code.  For a single line change you have to
> rebuild and install the module, rebuild the assembly, and re-extract and
> relaunch the server image.  This is needed since Geronimo loads classes from
> the server repository and currently cannot from the local m2 repo or from
> the "target/classes" directory itself.
> Well to ease the developer experience I think we need to change that.  As
> a first step, I'd like to see if we can hook into geronimo a "developers
> module" that the repository code can delegate over to to load from the m2
> repo.  That itself would be an improvement and developers could simply
> rebuild the module without having to regen a new assembly.  A step beyond
> that would be the ability to treat the source tree as a repo, and geronimo
> load directly from target/classes, this is tricker since the modules in the
> source tree don't follow a groupId/artifact/version/type convention so some
> sort of intelligent mapping would have to be done.  In theory, this would
> give us the ability to simply compile a module (with an IDE compiler and not
> maven) and simply re-start the server.
> Would this be an effort that would be valuable to the community?
> If so, if there are suggestions on how to go about implementing either the
> first or second solution, please give your input.
> thx
> -sachin

View raw message