geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hernan Cunico <>
Subject Re: framework assembly distribution?
Date Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:37:54 GMT
As much as I would like to see this new flavor out it wouldn't be the same if nobody knows
how to use it.

Yes, you all guessed right, I'm again around the documentation. Who is volunteering to do
some "explaining" thingy ? 

This is not a small deal, if we release this new distro we need to make some announcements
on the web site, add some overview on the download page and definitively a section in the
2.1 documentation.


Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> With our 2.1 distribution (as with earlier distributions) we are only 
>>> providing the javaee5 & minimal assemblies.  Are we ever planning to 
>>> make the geronimo-framework assembly available in a distribution so 
>>> that a user could start from scratch (not even a web container) and 
>>> build up a server by installing plugins?
>>> That was the original intent when we created this assembly.  I know 
>>> that the originally framework included enough deployment capability 
>>> to deploy plugins.  However, I'm not certain that is still the case 
>>> (I haven't tried in a long time).  Assuming you can still install 
>>> plugins (or we add that back in), I think it makes sense to 
>>> distribute this assembly. BTW, I'm not proposing this for 2.1 given 
>>> that it is nearly completely baked.
>> All the framework assembly can do is install plugins.  I think we 
>> should definitely distribute it in the future and I am proposing we 
>> distribute it for 2.1 as well.  IIUC in any case it will get into the 
>> maven repos, so adding it to the official download page shouldn't be 
>> too hard.
> Agreed. We are releasing the framework assembly. It's part of the binary 
> artifacts in our maven repo -- 

> Simple matter, IMO, to also include in the distribution page. IMO, a 
> vote isn't necessary (as it's already covered by the existing 2.1 vote). 
> I'll give this a bit of time, to see if there are contrary opinions. 
> Assuming, the 2.1 vote passes and there aren't any objections, I'll set 
> up framework in the distribution directory, also.
> --kevan

View raw message