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] plugingroups - another idea
Date Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:19:05 GMT

On Sep 12, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Lin Sun wrote:

> It is my intention to switch to car format eventually.  However,
> switching to car format won't work right now and we have to work out
> the details.   Once it is in car format, it will be added to geronimo
> plugin catalog via c-m-p.

After I discovered multicast doesn't work on my mac on an airplane I  
implemented this yesterday.  GERONIMO-4300, rev 694978.  I updated the  
assemblies to use the now .car plugingroups and also changed to using  
the framework plugingroup instead of unpacking the framework  
assembly.  This seemed a lot faster but I didn't time it with a clock.

thanks
david jencks
>
>
> Our plugin installer currently recognizes the plugin groups as
> plugins.  Plugin groups are treated similar as plugins without
> module-id, which means the plugin installer would skip the
> installation of the plugin itself but process the installation of its
> dependencies.
>
> Lin
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:01 AM, David Jencks  
> <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> So yes, plugin groups right now are very "assemble a server"  
>>> specific.
>>> If we turn the plugin groups into cars we would get a lot more
>>> flexibility: classloaders, remote install of plugin groups, etc.
>>>
>> I wasn't clearly aware that our plugin install stuff didn't  
>> recognize the
>> plugin groups as plugins.  Now that I do I think its a bug :-)  I'm  
>> not sure
>> if the plugin group packaging file extension should be car or jar or
>> something else, so far I lean towards car.
>>


Mime
View raw message