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: Making framework more obviously self-sufficient
Date Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:06:20 GMT

On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:28 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:17 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I'd like framework to build the entire working framework server,  
>> thus demonstrating that it really is a complete server.  I think it  
>> would work with the following changes:
>>
>> - move at least the car-maven-plugin into framework, perhaps all of  
>> buildsupport
>> - move the jsr88 classloader into framework
>> - move the framework plugingroup into framework
>> - move the assemblies geronimo-boilderplate and geronimo-framework  
>> into framework
>>
>> This is somewhat related to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4258
>>
>> Thoughts? Objections? Comments?
>
> Personally, seems a bit forced... I'm not sure I understand your  
> motivations, and if I do understand, not sure that I really agree  
> with them. Why exactly is "demonstrating that it really is a  
> complete server" necessary? Or good?
>
> Can you be a bit more precise about what you mean by 'jsr88  
> classloader'?
>
> Personally, I kind of like that a 'plugingroup' can be found in  
> 'trunk/plugingroups'. Similar feelings for assemblies and  
> buildsupport.
>
> My sense is that you want 'framework' to be a standalone entity, as  
> if it were separately releasable -- which we could do (although I  
> don't see much advantage in that, at the moment...). Until we're  
> ready to truly split it apart, I'm not sure there's much gain by  
> going half-way.

My idea about the geronimo servers is that we have a base, the  
framework server, that can't do anything except be extended, and then  
we have bunches of functionality, such as the jetty web container,  
that can be added to it.    I want this to be not just a theoretical  
hand waving marketing statement but actually reflected in the code.   
To me this means that there should be a clearly delineated way to  
build the framework server with essentially nothing else.  Currently  
this is impractical.  You'd have to build a few framework modules, go  
build the car-maven-plugin, build a few framework configs, build a  
plugins/classloader plugin, build the rest of the framework modules,  
build the rest of the framework configs, build the framework  
plugingroup, build the assembly boilerplate, and finally the framework  
assembly.  IMNSHO this is ridiculous and implies that geronimo is not  
very agile or easy to deal with, and certainly not easily extensible  
for other purposes.  Someone who wants to  build some  kind of special  
purpose server - such as the plugin-farm-node - has to build all of  
geronimo to get to the few parts they actually want.

The jsr88 classloader is plugins/classloaders/geronimo-javaee- 
deployment_1.1MR3_spec.  It now has one of our extension classes in it  
as well as the jsr88 spec.

I have no problem having framework/plugingroups for the framework  
plugin group, framework/buildsupport for the maven plugin(s) and  
framework/assembly for the geronimo-framework assembly.

I think this also moves us closer to what I thought was an agreed goal  
of releasing the plugins separately from the framework and assembled  
servers.

thanks
david jencks

>
> --kevan


Mime
View raw message