geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] enhance the assemble server portlet usability
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:10:37 GMT

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