geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: Splitting up the server into a few more chunks
Date Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:03:53 GMT

On Aug 6, 2007, at 8:12 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> I certainly agree with your goal but am less sure about your  
> proposed naming and organization.  Also from looking at your list  
> it took me a couple minutes to figure out what is removed from  
> "server"
> I've been thinking that we could proceed by turning bits of the  
> server into plugins.  For instance I was planning to turn the  
> directory bits I commented out recently into a plugin this week.  I  
> think we could fairly easiiy turn jetty, tomcat, and openejb into  
> plugins.  I wonder if, after turning the "easy stuff" into plugins  
> what we will think about reorganizing the remaining stuff.
> So then the question might be how to organize the plugins?

Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I'd like to backup the  
idea of pulling things out one at a time, like we did with connector  
and transaction, making them plugins if possible.  It would be really  
great if people do things like upgrade OpenEJB when a new release  
came out -- which we're hoping is often.


> thanks
> david jencks
> On Aug 6, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Hiya, I've mentioned this before... and now that we have a 2.0  
>> branch and trunk has moved on to 2.1 work, I think its time we  
>> really make a decision on this and implement it.
>> Before, I had been thinking of keeping all of the modules in the  
>> server/trunk tree just in better locations organized by  
>> functionality and feature not by artifact type.  But, now I'm  
>> thinking we should really do one step more than that, and split up  
>> the server/trunk project into several smaller and more manageable  
>> chunks of modules.  I still think that the basic grouping that we  
>> kinda talked about before should work fine, but instead of having  
>> them share a project namespace we give them their own.
>> So, for example...
>> server-support/trunk
>>     testsupport
>>     buildsupport
>> server-framework/trunk
>>     geronimo-activation
>>     geronimo-client
>>     geronimo-client-builder
>>     geronimo-clustering
>>     geronimo-common
>>     geronimo-connector
>>     geronimo-connector-builder
>>     geronimo-core
>>     geronimo-deploy-config
>>     geronimo-deploy-jsr88
>>     geronimo-deploy-jsr88-bootstrapper
>>     geronimo-deploy-tool
>>     geronimo-deployment
>>     geronimo-gbean-deployer
>>     geronimo-interceptor
>>     geronimo-j2ee
>>     geronimo-j2ee-builder
>>     geronimo-j2ee-schema
>>     geronimo-jmx-remoting
>>     geronimo-kernel
>>     geronimo-management
>>     geronimo-naming
>>     geronimo-naming-builder
>>     geronimo-security
>>     geronimo-security-builder
>>     geronimo-service-builder
>>     geronimo-system
>>     geronimo-test-ddbean
>>     geronimo-timer
>>     geronimo-transaction
>>     geronimo-transaction-jta11
>>     geronimo-transformer
>>     geronimo-util
>>     geronimo-web-2.5-builder
>> And then we can group some of the related components up into  
>> shared projects, or just go out and give each component its own  
>> project, and/or think about maybe using the same style that the  
>> maven/plugins/trunk tree uses, a shared project, but each  
>> component is related individually... still not sure I like that,  
>> kinda messy.
>> I don't want to end up with a ton of projects either, and I  
>> certainly don't want to get up using SNAPSHOT versions of these  
>> puppies if we can help it.  So, maybe to start out we could do these:
>>     server-support
>>     server-framework
>>     server-components
>>     server-assembly
>> BTW, I'm using "dash" here so that the names don't collide with  
>> what is there now, but really we could user server/support/trunk,  
>> server/framework/trunk, etc (which is better IMO for the longer run).
>> And in the process of making this split up, we can re-arrange  
>> modules by feature and function instead of by type... and actually  
>> we have to do that to make the components bits work.
>>  * * *
>> I really believe this will help improve the support and  
>> maintainability of the server's code-base and it will help the  
>> project scale better as new components are added too.  For  
>> developers that are only interested in working on a specific  
>> component, it reduces the amount of other sources they need to  
>> check out and reduces the time to build too, so that they can  
>> build a clean server assembly faster and developer their features  
>> sooner and hopefully have less hair-pulling and more relaxed beer  
>> drinking as they pat themselves on the back for doing such a  
>> speedy job.
>> I really, really... really, really, really ( :-P ) think that we  
>> *must* move along these lines for the longer term health of the  
>> project...
>> Comments?  Suggestions?
>> --jason

View raw message