geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shiva Kumar H R" <shiv...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo in year 2008
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:50:28 GMT
On Feb 13, 2008 1:56 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Things that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:
>
> EE 6 -- we should be seeing an initial EE 6 spec, soon. As other
> projects begin implementing EE 6 capabilities, I expect that we'll be
> rolling them into Geronimo. There are also new specifications which we
> may need to implement ourselves. I know that Jarek has looked at the
> Concurrency Utilities specification (which may be part of EE 6).
> Hoping he can tell us about that...
>
> Performance -- One area that I think we need to improve is startup
> time. I think our startup has slowed down, and I'd like to see us
> speed it up dramatically. We can measure current startup performance
> and optimize our hot spots. Depending on what we find, we can also
> investigate algorithmic enhancements.
>

And what about size of our assemblies? With G1.1.1 I had always taken pride
talking about Geronimo being lightweight - a J2EE server under just 35MB!!

I remember there were some discussions & effort before 2.0 release. Have we
reached a point where we can't reduce the size any further?


> Monitoring -- I think we need to get a handle on the metrics that can
> be monitored in Geronimo, document them, and look for areas of
> improvement.
>
> Logging -- review our current logging infrastructure. Too many
> components lack appropriate logging capabilities. This makes debug and
> problem analysis more difficult than it should be. I think we need to
> start addressing this problem with more. We're debugging too many
> problems, still.
>

+100 Would go a long way in improving usability/consumability of Geronimo.


> Plugin development -- I'd like to make it easier to develop plugins. I
> think we should look into tooling support (Eclipse and Netbeans). I'd
> also like to simplify the process for administrative creation of
> plugins (admin console or admin commands).
>
> Server assembly --  We could look at simplifying this process. You
> currently must have application plugins in order to include
> application capabilities in a server assembly. Why not export based on
> one or more installed applications? Also, in addition to our current,
> low-level module/plugin focus, can we have a simpler/higher-level
> focus? Some users would rather choose "JMS" rather than
> "org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.1/car", "JSP/Servlet",
> "Deploy" capabilities, etc.
>
> --kevan
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

Mime
View raw message