geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject How to assemble a server (was: Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml)
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:22:14 GMT

On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:13 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:

> 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.

I don't see our starting point (e.g. the framework server) as  
limiting the preconfigured servers we distribute.  Even after we have  
a wonderful "build your own server from plugins" tool we may well  
want to ship some servers where we have added a few things... such as  
a web container.

In any case I think the main bits missing from assembly from plugins  
are the plugin metadata/installation being able to modify more of the  
files in var and in particular var/config such as all the and

david jencks

> 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
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Author: dwoods
>>>>> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>>> New Revision: 568632
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> 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: 
>>>>> 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>

View raw message