Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=S7SyW9wpg8+63JvdA3/vuHdGkcgiEEvxdnn1uC6zTBAoCCZDq1jZuUI7gbUPtyyNv5sR97F6HIyJjGWJXQamQc//avi+x/iWn0pC94vIiC9A60ukaOE3rSuV2nMOFCO0j6XJkiWZ7/7/DOmABIKSfHWbuTQ+FZrQt7eXFWXQ9Mo=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <2FBED234-757D-4FEC-BE43-3003E7F162BB@planet57.com>
References: <866DAE61-5576-4393-BB70-80E4AE9D41B0@hogstrom.org>
 <66DAA9AF-44A7-4396-9FFA-3DB372C570A6@planet57.com>
 <21df75940702091232v162d6290s65da5d5151755408@mail.gmail.com>
 <2FBED234-757D-4FEC-BE43-3003E7F162BB@planet57.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <A4277689-EE5A-40BD-A50C-0825482A5346@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Next 2.0 Milestones - Assemblies and Certification - Do
 we need 8?
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:55:52 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

I think this would be great, especially if we adapted the assembly  
stuff we have now so you could extract a server that had just what  
you wanted in it.  Then we could supply just one download and let  
people simplify it themselves if they wanted to.

thanks
david jencks

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
>