geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Warner" <jaw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: geronimo plugin schema (longish)
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:22:17 GMT
Paul,

>From what you described and looking at the schema you provided, it looks
like the changes made by Geronimo-2757 are going to get blown away and
replaced by this new plugin-module.  Am I right in thinking that?

Also, I think it would be a great idea to replace the SAX parsing currently
used by the Plugin Installer.  In fact, I think you might almost have to
given that you're going to have a lot of duplicate elements within a
plugin.  The current SAX parser seems inadequate for what you plan on
doing.  Just my $0.02.

-Jason Warner

On 7/20/07, Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org> wrote:
>
> You're not confused.  That was my point/question of does it really make
> sense
> to have one massive geronimo-plugins.xml for several releases....
>
> I +1 the idea of updating the schema, I'm just wondering how we can use it
> from a build perspective....
>
>
> -Donald
>
> Jason Warner wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/07, *Donald Woods* <dwoods@apache.org
> > <mailto:dwoods@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     Sounds like a good idea, but does this help or hurt us as far as
> >     trying to
> >     automatically generate the geronimo-plugins.xml after a
> >     build?  Seems like
> >     keeping multiple releases in one XML file is going to become a PITA
> >     after a
> >     couple of releases....
> >
> >     Why not create a separate geronimo-plugins.xml for each major
> >     release stream
> >     (like 2.0/2.0.x and then 2.1/2.1.x)?  Wouldn't that be easier to
> >     maintain,
> >     especially if we reorg the modules/configs in 2.1 for the new
> >     pluggable admin
> >     Portlets and move unnecessary code out into optional plugins....
> >
> >
> > Isn't that what we do already?  IIUC, we currently do have a different
> > geronimo-plugin.xml
> > for each release.  I think the whole point of what Paul wants to do is
> > to move away from that.
> > I might be confused, though.  It's early :)
> >
> >     -Donald
> >
> >     Paul McMahan wrote:
> >      > I've been thinking about some changes to the geronimo-plugin
> >     schema to
> >      > make plugin catalogs less verbose and easier to maintain across
> >     versions
> >      > of Geronimo.  The problem with the current schema is that some of
> >     the
> >      > plugin metadata that is sensitive to the geronimo version is
> >     grouped in
> >      > <geronimo-versions> elements, but some is not.
> >      >
> >      > Plugins are often sensitive to the geronimo version they were
> >     developed
> >      > under since they typically rely on lots of container services.
> >     Besides
> >      > that, in general plugins only work in the version of geronimo
> >     they were
> >      > exported from (or car plugin version).  So this schema limitation
> >     makes
> >      > it difficult to create one catalog that supports several versions
> of
> >      > geronimo without having a lot of redundant plugin entries.  Right
> >     now we
> >      > maintain separate catalogs at http://geronimo.apache.org/pluginsfor
> >      > each version of geronimo because of this limitation.
> >      >
> >      > I attached a proposed schema here :
> >      >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3330
> >      >
> >      > Using that new schema a plugin entry would look something like:
> >      >     <plugin>
> >      >             <name/>
> >      >             <category/>
> >      >             <description/>
> >      >             <url/>
> >      >             <author/>
> >      >             <license/>
> >      >             <plugin-module>
> >      >                 <module-id/>
> >      >                 <hash/>
> >      >                 <geronimo-version/>
> >      >                 <jvm-version-version/>
> >      >                 <prerequisite>
> >      >                         <id/>
> >      >                         <resource-type/>
> >      >                         <description/>
> >      >                 </prerequisite>
> >      >                 <dependency/>
> >      >                 <obsoletes/>
> >      >                 <source-repository/>
> >      >             </plugin-module>
> >      >             <plugin-module>
> >      >                  ...
> >      >             </plugin-module>
> >      >     </plugin>
> >      >
> >      > Note that the metadata that is sensitive to the geronimo version
> is
> >      > encapsulated in a <plugin-module> element.  And a single <plugin>
> can
> >      > several <plugin-module> elements ( e.g. one for each version of
> >     geronimo
> >      > it supports).
> >      >
> >      > While making this schema change two other things I was
> considering is
> >      > factoring the plugin code out of geronimo-system into a separate
> >     config
> >      > and using JAXB to handle the XML processing instead of the sax
> >     code it
> >      > currently uses.    Feedback is welcome.
> >      >
> >      > Best wishes,
> >      > Paul
> >      >
> >      >
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message