geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik B. Craig" <>
Subject Re: J2G future positioning
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:30:26 GMT
Looking back, I explained what I was intending very poorly in my 
previous reply, but Paul has worded it much better. I am in agreement 
with this approach 100%.


Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> +1
> 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 
> platform.
> 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.
> Jay
> 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