geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Naming the servers
Date Fri, 04 May 2007 18:09:32 GMT
One advantage of creating these template and instance directories (and 
unrelated multiple repo support), is it allows users who want tighter 
Unix/Linux integration (like Novell did with Geronimo 1.0 for their SUSE 10 
distros) the support needed to create multiple RPMs and to allow users to 
create their own server instances, without having write access to the base 
server files and repo.

More comments in-line below.

David Jencks wrote:
> I haven't had time to look at this thoroughly but I have a couple 
> comments anyway.  Take them with plenty of salt.
> 
> 1. IMO anyone using this feature is likely to want to heavily customize 
> geronimo so their "template" bears little resemblance to what we 
> supply.  If they don't do this, we've failed to provide a sufficiently 
> customizable server.  So I think its equally important to provide 
> facilities to extract a "minimal" server that will run a set of apps and 
> make it the template.

I agree and suggested on an earlier thread that I would like to see us include 
both the JEE5 and Minimal config files in the JEE5 server assembly.  That way, 
users can start with the minimal runtime footprint (which was about 50MB 
earlier this week for Tomcat on Java5) and grow into a JEE5 server if needed. 
  Maybe all we need to do, is create pristine copies of those 2 configs in the 
normal var/config directory, as config.xml.jee5 and config.xml.minimal.

> 
> 2. I think the predominant use of uncustomized geronimo will be as a 
> single server so I'm reluctant to, for this use, hide "var" under a 
> couple more directories.  It would certainly make my use of geronimo 
> more complicated.  I'm worried that to make life a little easier for 
> advanced users we may be making it more complicated for beginners.  What 
> do other people think?

Agree, but at the same time, we need to provide guidance to our users on how 
to correctly and reliably create additional instances without interfering with 
the default server instance.  Supplying a tool/script to do this would be the 
ideal case, so the correct files would be copied over and the portOffset 
updated...


-Donald

> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On May 4, 2007, at 6:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> 
>> I like "instances/template" and "instances/default", as it maps to how 
>> some other app servers use "domains" for their instances directory....
>>
>> Also, has the geronimo-maven-plugin been updated to handle this change?
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>> I'm not sure how others feel, on paper geronimo0 sounds fine but when 
>>> I cd into the actual distribution and the first my eye catches is a 
>>> geronimo0 folder and seems more like a typo error to me.
>>> What about just geronimo-default, or default-instance, or just 
>>> default?  Or perhaps an instances folder, with geronimo0 inside.  I 
>>> just have an issue with geronimo0 as a root folder.
>>> -sachin
>>> On May 4, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>   I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
>>>> instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var. This
>>>> has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems with this
>>>> change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should help.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Anita
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message