geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Kirby" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove GEP server features?
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:56:17 GMT
I'll see if I can change the current "Download and Install" button to
a "Download" button that would open in a browser window...  Is
that the right URL?


On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Donald Woods <> wrote:
> Agree, but can we instead provide a Download button or link that launches a
> browser to our distributions page, so we still make it easy for users to
> find our server assemblies?
> -Donald
> Tim McConnell wrote:
>> Hi Ted, I view the value-add of being able to download the Geronimo server
>> from the GEP to be very negligible to an end-user. It's slow and very
>> error-prone, and I cannot recall any problems reported by users of this
>> capability, which leads me to believe that it is not used very much. We
>> should probably verify on the user-list though (I wonder if we can somehow
>> gather download statistics for these server features ??). As you've noted
>> the development hours required to maintain this function in the future with
>> the new provisioning system of Ganymede is going to continue to be
>> inordinate. I don't really like the idea of "hiding" this capability though;
>> I think we should just eliminate it entirely, especially if it would
>> facilitate your idea of getting the GEP server adapter included with WTP,
>> which is a wonderful idea as it could conceivably expose Geronimo to many
>> new users who may not even be aware of it. Thanks
>> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>> One motivation here is to simplify things for users.  The first choice
>>> when installing GEP using the eclipse update manager is do you want an
>>> "Apache Geronimo Runtimes" or "Geronimo WTP Server Adapters".  (I
>>> addressed a simplification issue in the "Geronimo WTP Server Adapters"
>>> section in (GERONIMODEVTOOLS-469) Remove Core Geronimo Feature.)
>>> Here, we take aim at eliminating "Apache Geronimo Runtimes".
>>> Should we allow a user to download the server from eclipse?
>>> Do we want to use the eclipse update manager to distribute our
>>> servers?  Certainly with plugins and configurable servers, this does
>>> not seem to be the way to go going forward.
>>> The org.apache.geronimo.server.{jetty,tomcat}.v2{01}.feature features
>>> allow the various instances of the server to be downloaded and
>>> installed.
>>> There are two ways this can work.  First, one of these server features
>>> may be installed in eclipse.  This results in the file
>>> being downloaded from the eclipse update web site (which is much (3-4
>>> times) slower than downloading the with your web browser),
>>> and putting it the eclipse features directory.  When you define a
>>> server, you choose an empty directory, and click the "Download and
>>> Install" button.  The server .zip previously downloaded is then
>>> expanded to this directory.  The second way this can work is to skip
>>> the installation of server feature altogether, and simply define a new
>>> server, choose an empty directory, and click the "Download and
>>> Install" button.  The same file is downloaded to the
>>> eclipse features directory, then expanded to the target directory.
>>> There are development costs and issues associated with maintaining and
>>> continuing to provide this support.  Keeping the license and notice
>>> files in-sync is one issue.  The "Download and Install" function has
>>> consumed a large number of development hours.  There is a problem with
>>> uninstalling them in Ganymede.  (See (GERONIMODEVTOOLS-467) Can't
>>> uninstall runtime after installing it via eclipse update manager in
>>> Ganymede for details.)  Also with Ganymede, there is a new version of
>>> the eclipse update manager, p2.  It is supposed to be compatible with
>>> the old one.  It handles the server adapters OK, but not the server
>>> features.  It reverts to the older update manager to install them.  (I
>>> think this is why they cannot be uninstalled.)
>>> I think most users will download the server, install it and run it,
>>> and especially customize it.  Then, I think they will use eclipse and
>>> GEP to develop applications for their existing server.  I don't think
>>> many users are using eclipse to download the server.
>>> These servers have their WTP server adapters bundled with WTP:
>>> Apache Tomcat
>>> IBM WAS v6.0
>>> JBoss
>>> ObjectWeb JOnAS
>>> Oracle OC4J
>>> I think we should pursue getting GEP in that list.  When defining new
>>> servers for these servers, only Apache Tomcat offers a "Download and
>>> Install" button, and it is permanently grayed out.  Most of them
>>> populate the app sever directory text box with /your_server_root/...,
>>> indicating they expect you to install it outside of eclipse.
>>> I think we can hide the server features, but still allow "Download and
>>> Install" to work.  I would put the server features on some other site,
>>> not the main one.  Then, users would not see it as an install option,
>>> but the "Download and Install" button would still work, because it
>>> would find the server on this other web site.
>>> However, all things considered, maybe we should remove the server
>>> features altogether.  We are so close to GEP 2.1.2 that we may want to
>>> do this until after GEP 2.1.2.  For 2.1.2, we may want to hide the
>>> server feature as described above.
>>> Comments?
>>> Ted Kirby

View raw message