geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Warner" <jaw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: An idea for defining custom valves in config.xml
Date Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:17:01 GMT
While David is more interested in the philosophy, I'd prefer to know a
little bit more about your thoughts on implementation.  Specifically what do
you imagine would be involved in defining this configuration?  Would it be
as simple as a definition in config.xml?

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gianny Damour <
gianny.damour@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> You are correct: the underpinning philosophy of these approaches is to make
> it easier to modify pre-canned plugins through extension points.
>
> This may be a good approach to improve further the packaging model of
> dependencies and services. Let's say that an end-user wants to add a
> connector to the tomcat6 plugin. Instead of using the admin console or
> updating his config.xml, he can simply deploy a cumulative plan. This notion
> of cumulative plan is the key differentiator as users can share their
> cumulative plans "as-is" - i.e. w/o knowing what the plugin to be modified
> looks like.  To some extent, providing a plan ready to be deployed instead
> of deployment instructions is better for novices.
>
> I will work on the Groovy builder approach and post back more details as I
> go.
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
>
> On 16/10/2008, at 10:59 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>  Hi Gianny,
>>
>> First, I'd like to make sure I understand the philosophy behind your
>> proposals.  IIUC they both involve the idea of making it easy to modify an
>> existing plugin rather than making it easy to replace an existing plugin
>> with a similar one.
>>
>> Why is this a good idea?  My idea has been that we should make it easier
>> to replace a plugin with a similar one than modify an existing one, and then
>> we will have the best of all worlds.
>>
>> All this being said, I think your ideas are both quite interesting.  I'm
>> especially interested in the groovy builder approach.
>>
>> I'll be fairly unavailable until next week but might keep thinking about
>> this anyway.
>>
>> thanks!
>> david jencks
>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>>
>>  On 15/10/2008, at 4:16 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>  That's one of the main missing bits of functionality.  Right now the
>>>> only way to get the g-p.xml is to use c-m-p or to export the plugin from
a
>>>> server it's been deployed into, or to do something by hand with jar packing
>>>> and unpacking.
>>>>
>>>> The biggest problem here, in my mind, is that jsr88 only wants you to
>>>> have one "plan": to deploy something you get to specify the artifact and
one
>>>> "plan".  Our deployment system is built around jsr88 so we either have to
>>>> condense the g-p.xml and plan into one "plan" or abandon jsr88.
>>>>
>>>> At the moment I'm thinking that one satisfactory solution might be to
>>>> more or less embed the plan into g-p.xml.  Perhaps we could avoid
>>>> duplicating most of the dependency info by adding the <import> element
to
>>>> the dependencies in g-p.xml.  I guess we'd expect a more or less empty
>>>> <environment> element in the plan and fill in the dependencies from
the
>>>> g-p.xml when deploying.
>>>>
>>>> I guess another possibility might be to include the info from g-p.xml in
>>>> the environment element of the plan.
>>>>
>>>> I've been thinking about this on and off for a long time and don't have
>>>> any solution I'm entirely happy with so discussion and more ideas are more
>>>> than welcome :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Another possible solution would be to allow the extension of a given
>>> configuration by other configurations. This could work like the web.xml
>>> fragment mechanism of the upcoming servlet specs which allows framework
>>> libraries to transparently install Web components to the baseline components
>>> defined by the web.xml DD.
>>>
>>> When a configuration starts it looks for complementing configurations
>>> whose responsibility is to alter the baseline configuration. The
>>> identification of complementing configurations could be based on a simple
>>> naming convention scheme, e.g. if the base configuration is org/tomcat6//car
>>> then all the configurations matching the pattern
>>> org/tomcat6-transform-DiscriminatorName//car are identified as complementing
>>> configurations.
>>>
>>> If there are complementing configurations, then the baseline
>>> ConfigurationData could be passed to them for arbitrary transformation, e.g.
>>> add, update or remove dependencies. An updated ConfigurationData is passed
>>> back and actually loaded by the kernel.
>>>
>>> The main drawback of this approach is the added configuration complexity.
>>> The main benefits is that it provides application server configuration
>>> traceability and a mean to perform very simple changes to a baseline
>>> configuration w/o having to redefine in its entirety the configuration to be
>>> slightly changed.
>>>
>>> In another thread about scripting language integration, I suggested an
>>> even simpler approach whereby a script is executed to perform
>>> ConfigurationData transformations.
>>>
>>> If any of these two options are plausible solutions, then I am happy to
>>> move forward with an implementation.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gianny
>>>
>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>


-- 
~Jason Warner

Mime
View raw message