geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lin Sun" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove GEP server features?
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:33:55 GMT
It would be great to have AG added to the list of server adapters
bundled with WTP!  I wonder what is the behavior of other servers'
adapters, such as Tomcat, WAS or JBoss... do they provide the
"download the server" function?   If they do, users may expect us to
work the same way.


On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, 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