geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: Geronimo VM-appliance?
Date Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:29:01 GMT
Yes I'm definetly going to include full svn, mvn, etc. With a  
prepopulated local repo for the developers appliance.


Was thinking about calling the effort "GBox". Any thoughts?


On Dec 16, 2008, at 11:54 AM, "Jack Cai" <> wrote:

> If it's for developers, maybe add Maven too.
> -Jack
> 2008/12/16 Donald Woods <>
> OS+Java 6+FF3+Server+Samples+Eclipse+GEP would be ideal for  
> developers....
> -Donald
> Jason Dillon wrote:
> Any idea why kinda of images you'd like to see?  I'm gonna try and  
> craft a simple, base-os+Geronimo image to test out.  But I think we  
> might want one which has say roller configured perhaps even another  
> which can demonstrate AMQ's message distribution over a cluster.
> --jason
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think this is a great idea.  I doubt we can host it at apache.....  
> unless we do something like bsd  + harmony (not even sure if that is  
> likely to work)
> thanks
> david jencks
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I've been playing around with VMWare, trying to optimize my  
> virtualization configuration, and it occurred to me that folks who  
> are savvy to the virtualization concept might benefit from having a  
> linux+openjdk+geronimo appliance ready to "play with" perhaps  
> another which is "ready for enterprise configuration".
> From an Apache POV its another distribution, specific to a  
> virtualization tool, like VMWare, but users who already have the  
> required tools installed, can basically download + install + run,  
> and they have a functional environment...
> IMO this is really nice as it drops a ton of evil platform issues  
> (er ya *F*-windows) but also can resolve issues about which JDK did  
> you install and did you configure your JAVA_HOME, blah, blah, blah.   
> There are a ton of problems a newbie might run into when trying to  
> play around with Geronimo as we all know.
> Granted, not everyone is going to have a virtualization environment  
> setup, but some will I'm sure... probably even the more savvy users  
> I would guess (and well we can probably give docs to explain how to  
> setup some virt stuff too if needed).  But those who do, we can  
> deliver them highly functionally images for "playing" or images  
> tailored for enterprise consumption.  That might be one which is  
> bare-minimum for folks that need a starting point to roll uber- 
> custom configurations (perhaps with a nice build env setup already  
> for them, primed with repo artifacts) or one for users that want to  
> deploy clustered ejb+web applications, and then another for simple  
> web apps.
> Seems to me that the advantage here is that you can configure the  
> server and provide simple admin+user documentation on a known  
> quantity... that being the VM which we publish for them.  That VM  
> *should* perform *approximately* the same on any non-virtual host  
> configuration (assuming we craft the image correctly).  But, okay  
> I'm no math genius, but from my perspective... lets say 10x users  
> have a problem due to config stuff right now, maybe 1-2x might have  
> a problem with the image (its damn easy to setup a VM-configuration  
> these days, and also damn easy to install an image).
> So, *assuming* that folks are savvy with VM-technology, it might  
> very well be *easier* to provide a VM image pre-configured for their  
> evaluation/exploration of Geronimo.
> I don't really expect folks to use that image for production, but I  
> would expect them to learn from then image to build their production  
> environment, perhaps even copying the configuration from the image  
> as a bootstrap (and I think we should provide docs on how to do  
> that).  Though for some folks, the image (say the simple webapp  
> image) might work just fine.
> I've seen a lot of mails about system dependent problems... windows  
> especially, damn I hate that platform... but there are other  
> problems too.  Like folks on Redhat who don't uninstall the crappy  
> GNU java muck and manually install the sun/ibm JDK, etc.  So I'm not  
> just hating on windows (though you and I both know I really, really,  
> really... really hate it).
> * * *
> Bottom line is that I think use of virtual machines is becoming more  
> popular.  I think it would be beneficial to Geronimo if we provided  
> one (or more) virtual machines images to showcase Geronimo's full  
> power... and reduce the myriad of complications some initial users  
> run into why running locally on their own systems.  And furthermore,  
> we can provide more customized images which fully exploit the full  
> power of the system, without having to go and complicate our build  
> (create new assemblies, slowing down build/dev times, etc).
> After writing all this, I think the only real issue is, since we are  
> part of Apache and this would technically be considered  some sort  
> of *release* artifact... who does including Linux (whatever distro)  
> jive with the ASF legally?
> I believe its a good idea... obviously or I would not have wasted  
> the time to try and explain my thoughts to you.  But I'm unsure that  
> the ASF can allow for such things, short of an ASF operating-system  
> coming into existence (which I'm neither counting on, nor hope  
> happens).  Perhaps a separate sourceforge or project  
> might suite better for legal issues?
> Anyways, seems like a good idea, I'd like to see it happen, its not  
> that hard... what do you folks think?
> --jason

View raw message