geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hernan Cunico <>
Subject Re: ApacheDS - LDAP - Geronimo Plugins
Date Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:50:18 GMT
Paul McMahan wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Hernan Cunico <> wrote:
>> Paul McMahan wrote:
>> > OK now that I'm looking deeper into this things are becoming clearer.
>> > First of all, as you pointed out the directory module is already
>> > included in the jee5 assembly, which I wasn't aware of.  Apparently
>> > the commit that was supposed to have removed it from the dist only
>> > updated the config.xml and not the pom, which seems to have left it in
>> > the repo even though it's not listed in the server configuration.  Or
>> > maybe just removing it from the config.xml was sufficient to prune it
>> > from the dist before we started building with m2(?).   So at any rate,
>> > its in the assembly now just not listed in config.xml or started by
>> > default.
>> right, so we should decide whether we ship it as a plugin or in the 
>> assembly (properly configured and enabled). If we go with the plugin 
>> idea then we should remove the mod and conf and any other traces from 
>> the branch (not just the assembly). If we go the other way around 
>> maybe we should remove the plugin for 1.2 and 2.0 as an alternative 
>> trying to avoid confusion.
> It's not necessary (or IMO desirable) to remove a component from the
> branch when its offered as a plugin instead of enabled in the default
> assembly.  IMO. the decision about whether or not a component is part
> of some particular assembly shouldn't necessarily dictate where the
> source for that component resides.   As long as the component remains
> in the branch we retain the option of enabling it in an assembly or
> offering it as a plugin, or both.
> In this case we're talking about the directory component.  If we
> include it in the default assembly then we should still offer it as a
> plugin since someone might uninstall it and then later decide to
> reinstall it as a plugin.

yup, you're right. I was only thinking in one scenario and that it would add more complications
to maintain up-to-date the same "feature" in two different places.
I did not think about a conf like littleG.

>> Either way, although important, I think now that is less critical as 
>> the plugin configuration (Geronimo side) is working.
> agreed
> Best wishes,
> Paul

View raw message