geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Next 2.0 Milestones - Assemblies and Certification - Do we need 8?
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:53:19 GMT
Ya, I'm aware of this... but I hope that if I can get vmware  
instances running on 2 of our big gbuild.org hosts (which might give  
us 14 - 30) more agents, then we might be able to manage running all  
those tests in a reasonable amount of time.

--jason


On Feb 10, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> You would still have to test all combinations of the plugins.  The  
> TCJ says something to the effect of "all modes" must be tested and  
> certified.
>
> -dain
>
> On Feb 9, 2007, at 11:09 PM, 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