geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: framework assembly distribution?
Date Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:33:18 GMT
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

Thanks Kevan (and David).  The framework assembly has been part of our 
binary artifacts since late 2006 but we had yet to include it for 
download with any release to date.  And since it was not listed for 2.1, 
  I wasn't clear that we were going to include it this go-around either. 
  Thanks for the clarification.


View raw message