geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Kirby" <ted.ki...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove GEP server features?
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:18:15 GMT
I now have code to open a browser window at
http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.html.

So, should I make all this so for trunk, and GEP 2.1.2?

My proposal/request for vote is to:

1) Eliminate the server runtime features
org.apache.geronimo.server.{jetty,tomcat}.v2{01}.feature
2) Replace the "Download and Install" button with a "Download Server"
link that opens an external browser window at
http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.html.

This simplifies the install options for GEP, and makes the user
install the server outside of eclipse, which is in line with what
servers included in WTP do.

Ted Kirby

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Ted Kirby <ted.kirby@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll see if I can change the current "Download and Install" button to
> a "Download" button that would open
> http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.html in a browser window...  Is
> that the right URL?
>
> Ted
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org> 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 server.zip file
>>>> being downloaded from the eclipse update web site (which is much (3-4
>>>> times) slower than downloading the server.zip 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 server.zip 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message