geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay D. McHugh" <>
Subject Re: J2G future positioning
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:42:18 GMT

This is making a -lot- of sense.

There is no reason that we need to build a huge monolithic Eclipse 
plugin to allow people to migrate applications to our modular server 

I originally didn't even think about breaking it up into a group of 
specific plugins using a common core - even though that is what Geronimo 
is all about.


Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> I'm with Paul on this. I envision a Migrate2Geronimo Toolkit that will
> consist of a suite of  individual plugins (for Eclipse and G), each
> handling the migration from a specific appserver to G. Of course, all
> these may depend on a base or common plugin. But  the user will only
> deal with the plugin relevant to him.  He will not have to install one
> big huge uber migrator if he only has jboss apps.
> Next week, we'll look forward to Jason adding a BEA2G plugin to this
> M2G Toolkit ;-)
> Cheers
> Prasad.
> On 10/30/07, Paul McMahan <> wrote:
>> I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super
>> migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of
>> source formats.   I think that instead we should look into factoring
>> out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators
>> into a separate Eclipse plugin.   Then J2G could remain as J2G but
>> could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new
>> migrators we create.
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>> On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>>> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
>>> plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial
>>> iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific
>>> migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if
>>> we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for
>>> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
>>> would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic
>>> and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ??
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim McConnell

View raw message