geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Geronimo in year 2008
Date Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:36:54 GMT

On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Kevan Miller 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.

I think most of this is because we're including more stuff to start  
in our server.  Framework start pretty fast -- less than 5 sec on my  
overloaded mac.

> 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.

Also switch to slf4j

> 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).

I think you can turn a module into a plugin using the admin console,  
but the support is incomplete and definitely too hard.  Just  
deploying an app should result in some kind of default plugin info.
> 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.

Why would someone choose "jms" rather than "my app, which uses jms,  
so it will get pulled in automatically"?  I think we definitely need  
to make all deployed apps into plugins automatically but beyond that  
I'm not yet seeing a big benefit...  If you are constructing a server  
that does more than support a set of apps, I think supplying complete  
names of what you are getting yourself in for is valuable :-)

david jencks

> --kevan

View raw message