geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jack Cai" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Reorg of Admin Console for 2.2
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:14:39 GMT
If we are thinking of a deeper hierarchy, here is another (more destructive
^_^) proposal to entertain. I'm still kind of new here, so might have missed
lots of background. Just trying to give my 2 cents from an "outsider"'s
point of view.

+ Servers
  + Application Server
   - Geronimo Kernel (put Information, Java System Info, Thread Pool and
Shutdown portlets in the same page here)
   - Web Server
   - JMS Server
   - System modules (Since they are "system", they should be part of the
   - Repository
   - New server assembly
  + Apache HTTP Server
  + Derby DB server
+ Applications
 - Deploy New (Suggest to merge in the plan creator, so that users can
either choose to use an existing plan file, or create a new one using the
 - User applications (merge WAR, EAR and Client. I don't quite understand
the reason to divide them)
 - Server plugins
+ Resources
 - DB pools
 - JMS resources
 - JEE Connectors
+ Security
 - (AS IS)
+ Monitoring and Troubleshotting
 - Monitoring
 - Logs
 - Debug Views


2008/11/25 Donald Woods <>

> Thanks for your response.  My comments in-line below.
> -Donald
> Lin Sun wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for bringing this up to discussion.   I am not seeing the
>> obvious advantage of what you propose and I have the following
>> specific comments -
>> 1. I kinda like what we currently have, Server and Service.
> The current grouping makes no sense, as everything under Services is part
> of the "Server" and everything under Server is "services" the runtime is
> providing....
>  2. I think we should have a plugin category (if we are going to have
>> the collapsible tree structure) and put the 3 plugin related portlets
>> there (install plugin, export plugin and customer server assembly).
>> Otherwise, I think it is better to have all 3 in one page (I believe
>> we discussed this before on dev list).
> Plugins should be viewed as just another application archive type, whereas
> exporting plugins and creating custom server assemblies has nothing to do
> with managing what applications are deployed in the current server runtime
> being managed, but are tools for those users who don't want to build plugins
> or custom assemblies via the maven c-m-p.
>  3. I really don't like the Tools name, as it is not concrete.   I'd
>> rather see stuff organized into specific names instead of a generic
>> name.
> Then suggest another name/grouping.  The current "Debug Views" is
> misleading to admins, as it makes them seem as developer focused portlets,
> whereas they are really there for admins and developers.  We also have
> monitoring tools, which really should be performed by an external
> application for true production environments (and we need to include some
> pre-canned "health monitoring" templates out of the box for developers and
> simple environments.)  The Apache HTTP portlet has nothing to do with the
> provided Geronimo runtimes, as we don't include the Apache HTTP server.
> The thought here, is to group all the portlets that are not used for
> server, application or security management, into a separate "tools"
> category.
>  4. I like plan creator under Applications better, as it is today.
> It provides no application management function today (aka.
> deploy/redeploy/undeploy) and is really only there because we didn't want to
> tie users to Eclipse (which we now have Deployment Plan Editors in the
> Eclipse tooling, so these should be viewed as optional tools now.)
>  Maybe we should not rush the organization of the console navigation in
>> 2.2, given that we are planning it soon.  I 'd rather to see us do it
>> in one shot, instead of changing it in 2.2 and changing it again in
>> 3.0.
> This is a discussion to see what people think.  If the consensus is to wait
> another year or more for console improvements, then fine, but just because
> we're planning on cutting the 2.2 branch mid-Dec. shouldn't keep us from
> making improvements now.
>  Lin
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Donald Woods <> wrote:
>>> Given our Console navigation tree has gotten so large and many "new"
>>> portlets were added in 2.0/2.1 without doing a proper reorg of what we
>>> had,
>>> I'm proposing the following changes as part of GERONIMO-4423, 4424, 4425
>>> and
>>> yet to be created JIRAs:
>>> 1) Reorg the Server Console contents into main categories of:
>>>  - Services (config/resources)
>>>    - combination of existing Server and Services portlets
>>>    - contains portlets for server/service configuration
>>>       info, threads, connectors, modules, jms server/resourecs, ...
>>>    - future portlet to setup clustering/farming member servers
>>>       and view their status would go here
>>>  - Applications (app deployment and life-cycle)
>>>    - portlets to deploy/redeploy/undeploy apps/wars/ears/jars
>>>    - portlets to install/uninstall and stop/start modules
>>>    - porlet to install plugins (not export or server assembly)
>>>    - future updates and/or new portlet to support deploy/undeploy
>>>       apps to clusters/farming would go here
>>>  - Security
>>>    - portlets focused on users/groups, keys/ca, realms
>>>  - Logging
>>>    - portlets to configure logging and log levels
>>>    - separate pages for Server, Web Access and Derby log viewers
>>>  - Tools
>>>    - everything in current "Debug Views" category
>>>    - Plan Creator portlet
>>>    - Monitoring portlet
>>>    - Embedded DB portlets (renamed to Derby * to reflect true usage)
>>>    - Apache HTTP portlet (for creating mod_jk configs)
>>>    - Exporting plugins
>>>    - Custom server assemblies
>>> I could see the Logging portlets as one page under Tools, as those are
>>> really runtime tools (changes don't survive a restart) for debugging
>>> server/application problems.
>>> I could also see the Security portlets being split between the Services
>>> and
>>> Tools categories (but really think these deserve their own category.)
>>> The point, is that we need to review how the admin console is laid out
>>> and
>>> try to regroup into Java EE roles/tasks/concepts, like server
>>> config/resources, app deployment/mgmt and other tools/tasks.
>>> -Donald

View raw message