geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] enhance the assemble server portlet usability
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:25:13 GMT
Sounds like a good approach.

-Donald


David Jencks wrote:
> 
> On Aug 12, 2008, at 12:47 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
> 
>> Thanks again for the valuable feedback - Donald and Kevan!
>>
>> If profile is what people are interested in, we need to identify what
>> profiles we want to provide and the plugins that each profile
>> contains.   We also want to think what type(s) of deployment we want
>> to provide with these profiles.   Do we always provide the command
>> line deployment with the profiles, or hot deployment, or console
>> deployment or gshell deployment, or we always provide all the
>> deployment options for each of the profile?  I am sure there are other
>> options/variables.
>>
>> Here are some possible profiles -
>>
>> - Web (our minimal assembly today)
>> - Web + JMS
>> - Web + EJB
>> - Web + Web Services
>> - Web + EJB + Persistence
>> - Web + Admin Console
>> - Web + JMS + Admin Console
>> - Web + EJB + Admin Console
>> - Web + JSF
>> - Web + Clustering
> 
> client profiles might be apropriate too.
> 
> I wonder how much of this is actually necessary?  e.g. if you install 
> the jetty-deployer plugin you get jetty too.  If you install the 
> jetty-console you get jetty....
> 
> What if we had a "select the parts" page that was organized differently 
> than the list of plugins.... e.g. checkboxes for web, ejb, webservices.  
> If you say yes to web, you get to choose jetty/tomcat, whether you want 
> deployment, whether you want the console.
> 
> Choosing web or ejb gives you the opportunity to include openjpa ( or 
> maybe toplink in the future)
> Choosing webservices gives you the choice of cxf or axis2
> 
> 
> Just some more or less random thoughts
> david jencks
> 
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I think it could be too much combinations than we can handle, unless
>> we can identify the exact profiles that users will likely want.
>>
>> If we allow users to pick profiles, it is nice we provide users with
>> profiles that we can test and verify first.  However, the user may end
>> up not seeing the function combination he desires.
>>
>> If we allow users to pick functions (a function is a group of
>> plugins), the user will have the maximum flexibility and we can still
>> test the common combination of functions (which is same as profiles).
>>
>> Lin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keeping 3 starting paths is fine, but we need to make sure we reuse the
>>>> same portlet views throughout.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I've heard second hand from other community members (like Kevan -
>>>> cough cough) that they have talked to end users who wanted 
>>>> simplified/tested
>>>> profiles to use for assembling servers (like Web + JMS).  If we provide
>>>> application and advanced paths, then we also need to provide a
>>>> profile/function path, which would allow companies/ISVs to create 
>>>> custom
>>>> packages tailored to different development groups that only contain the
>>>> function they need.
>>>
>>> :-) I have had conversations where that was requested and seem to recall
>>> musing/wishing for this in the past...
>>>
>>> Glad to see this discussion occurring.
>>>
>>> I like the concept of profiles.
>>>
>>> My one comment, at the moment, is the discussion may be too focused 
>>> on the
>>> admin console. I'd like to be sure we also include command-based 
>>> scenarios
>>> as well (and even maven?). IMO, we should permit the same basic 
>>> abstractions
>>> (at least for the command-based scenario).
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
>>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message