geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:13:27 GMT


David Jencks wrote:
> I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly be 
> constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly.  Just because 
> there has been no progress on this goal in the last year...

I agree.  That was the original vision and why the framework assembly 
was created.

> 
> I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we can 
> actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this 
> assembly.  We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)

heh ...  I'll bet that would work! ;-)  I also agree that we're pretty 
close with some of the progress on the web console extensibility piece 
so that we can start building the assemblies from the plugins.  That's 
actually what spawned the question again now.  We'll build up assemblies 
from some "base" framework via plugins and collections of plugins (I and 
others have referred to these as templates at other times) to create our 
default server configurations or custom user/system assemblies.

I was just wondering what the best "starting point" was for this.  While 
a base framework without a web container is the most architecturally 
pure ... it might not be the most user friendly.  It could be argued 
that it doesn't make sense to deliver to users a core framework that 
isn't good for anything unless something is added to it.  I supposed we 
could hide the complexity with a template installer (or perhaps build 
installing the template/plugins into server initialization on the first 
server start or some other "non-install" activity).  That way users that 
just want a minimal or jee5 assembly don't have to deal directly 
directly with the framework.  We'll have to give this some more thought.

Oh well ... you've all convinced me that it might be too soon to pull 
the plug on the framework assembly and it may very well still be the 
core assembly.  Thanks to all that responded.

Joe



> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> 
>> Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use the 
>> framework assembly?    One scenario that comes to mind is an installer 
>> that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on top of it 
>> for a truly customized server.   The minimal assembly already seems to 
>> fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the installer could 
>> just remove the web container in the uncommon(?) cases where its not 
>> needed.   So the minimal assembly could be the base line for an 
>> installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly that serves as the 
>> low-end for our users (i.e. no installer required).  Plus, since the 
>> minimal assembly has a web container we could use a web UI for the 
>> installer instead of some native app like we used to have -- actually 
>> the "installer" is more like a plugin configurer from that point of view.
>>
>> What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly could 
>> be useful?   And do the recent advancements in GShell (very cool 
>> btw!!) play into this discussion?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework 
>>> "ie. containerless" assembly?  I was just thinking of removing this 
>>> assembly prior to seeing this change.
>>>
>>> At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly 
>>> (without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server. 
>>> However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web 
>>> container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal 
>>> assemblies we already have).  There's been a lot of cool work on the 
>>> pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction to 
>>> make this the primary interface for building and managing the server 
>>> ... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal starting 
>>> point.
>>>
>>> So, the question is:  Should we remove the framework assembly and 
>>> work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always 
>>> include a web container?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> dwoods@apache.org wrote:
>>>> Author: dwoods
>>>> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>> New Revision: 568632
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
>>>> Modified:
>>>>     geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>> URL: 
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff

>>>>
>>>> ==============================================================================

>>>>
>>>> --- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml 
>>>> (original)
>>>> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Wed 
>>>> Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
>>>>      <dependencies>
>>>>                   <dependency>
>>>> +            <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>>>> +            <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
>>>> +            <version>${version}</version>
>>>> +        </dependency>
>>>> +
>>>> +        <dependency>
>>>>              <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
>>>>              <artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
>>>>              <version>${version}</version>
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message