geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Next 2.0 Milestones - Assemblies and Certification - Do we need 8?
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:24:52 GMT
I like the idea but I wonder how practical it will be and if users could 
get themselves in trouble.

For example, what would happen if a set of applications was deployed 
using tomcat & cxf and then the user attempted to switch to jetty & 
axis?  Granted, with the plugin approach they could create similar 
problems but since it's a little more difficult to install/uninstall a 
plugin which might provide some more safeguards.

I guess we could always keep track of the previous state and warn the 
user if they are attempting to change the configuration on a subsequent 
restart when applications are deployed that have been configured for the 
prior configuration.

Joe


Jason Dillon wrote:
> How big would one assembly be if we include *everything* like jetty, 
> tomcat, axis2, cxf, everything.  Not turned on though... then just 
> provide people with a way to switch between personalities from the 
> command line, and make one of them as default, so that if the server 
> starts to boot up with no personality (hehe), then it will apply the 
> default to itself when bootstrapping?
> 
> Its probably gonna make the assembly zip a wee bit larger, but we'd only 
> have one of em... so build time would be much faster, and if people want 
> to try out different bits they don't have to redownload all that other 
> stuff... but also, everything we need to make a javaee server is already 
> in the assembly zip, so don't have to worry about networking muck to get 
> the right personality up and running.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> --jason
> 
> 
> On Feb 9, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> 
>> On 2/8/07, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>>> I'm definitely *NOT* in-favor of 8 assemblies.
>>
>> Ditto.  Even if there was time and manpower to test every possible
>> assembly then I still don't think the end user would be prepared to
>> make an informed choice about which one to download.
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> > If there is a plugin option then I think the TCK discussion becomes
>>> > simpler.  Anyway, for those more skilled in that art than I what
>>> > are the community thoughts on how to address our expanding set of
>>> > pluggable components?
>>
>> I think that presenting the user with lots of choices is a good thing
>> if geronimo can  :
>>  1.) provide a TCK tested default assembly
>> 2.) help users make informed decisions about changing the defaults
>> 3.) make it easy to enact their decisions
>> 4.) allow them to change their minds later
>>
>> With that in mind, I think the ideal scenario (from a user's
>> perspective) would be to provide one fully tested JEE5 assembly from
>> the download page and then make it easy to swap out components after
>> installation using plugins.  Components that have passed the TCK in
>> any assembly can be marked as such in the plugin catalog, along with
>> any other useful information about that component such as which JEE
>> spec it implements, etc.  Components that are mutually exclusive like
>> cxf and axis2, jetty and tomcat, etc can provide metadata that will
>> prompt the plugin system to uninstall the component that is being
>> replaced.
>>
>> There are lots of details and what-ifs that would need to be worked
>> out before this approach can be fully realized.  But if there's
>> consensus around it then the next release could at least take a step
>> in the right direction.  AFAIK most if not all of the necessary
>> functionality and infrastructure are already in place.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message