geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <drw_...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Differences between jetty6-jee5 and tomcat6-jee5 config.xml files?
Date Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:14:23 GMT


Paul McMahan wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Donald Woods <drw_web@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But if we add it to the tomcat6-jee5 config.xml, wouldn't that allow a
>> user to set load=false on it if they also disabled the webconsole?
> 
> Currently if a user disables webconsole in the tomcat assembly then
> the dojo module will no longer start automatically unless some other
> application (like daytrader) has also specified a dependency against
> it.  So as it stands right now, the dojo module's startup behavior is
> dependent on some application actually requiring the static resources
> that it serves up.  I think that is desirable behavior since the dojo
> module really serves no purpose other than to provide a shared copy of
> the dojo library to webapps in a server or in a cluster.

Sounds like a good line of reasoning to me.

> 
> If the dojo module was explicitly added to config.xml then users might
> enable it when its not needed (how would they know?) or disable it
> when it is needed.   Actually I'm not sure what happens if you
> explicitly disable a module in config.xml that another module depends
> on.. would the dependent module fail to start?

After building with the dojo-tomcat car in config.xml, I added 
load=false and it was still loaded and config.xml was updated after 
startup with the load=false removed due to the webconsole....

> 
>> Also, shouldn't we list all installed configurations by default, so
>> users can better understand which ones are being provided by the
>> assembly, like users deploying Daytrader or other end user apps that
>> want to use our provided Dojo files?
> 
> I think that could be useful as long as maven could automate the
> creation of that file and its still easy to customize and find the
> important bits in it.  We could also just point the user towards the
> list-modules CLI and the modules portlet for gathering that type of
> information.  I think I would prefer those over config.xml but all
> users are different.
> 

Yep, was just a thought.  I'll pass on trying to create more Maven or 
Groovy Mojo to handle this.... :-)


> Best wishes,
> Paul
> 
> 

-Donald

Mime
View raw message