geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim McConnell <tim.mcco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove GEP server features?
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:58:18 GMT
+1 for committing to trunk !!

Ted Kirby wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
> 

-- 
Thanks,
Tim McConnell

Mime
View raw message