geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Finishing up tomcat server.xml configuration work...
Date Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:38:58 GMT
Hi Jeff,

I'm afraid our points of view are rather different.  I've added some  
comments inline to try to explain my point of view.

On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:14 PM, chi runhua wrote:

> Before we start working on documentation, I'd like to confirm what I  
> understood so far is correct.
> We have 2 different scenarios: (1) users are going to develop new  
> applications but they are used to the tomcat way; (2) users have  
> existing application running on Tomcat, we'd like to provide a  
> seamless way migrating to Geronimo.
> For (1), We support server.xml now because we want users to use  
> Geronimo in the same way they used to be as in Tomcat, such as  
> connector configuration, security realm, log configuration, valve  
> and deploy method as well; in this case,

Connector configuration  and deployment in geronimo are still  
completely different from tomcat.  Tomcat security realms won't  
integrate with geronimo security.

> Geronimo will take care of users' applications and provide run-time  
> environment. Anyway, we will recommend users to adopt GBean usage  
> for Web container configuration instead of using server.xml, which  
> we can demostrate the up-sides of Geronimo architecture using app- 
> per-port sample;

The only reason I can see to configure a tomcat server using gbeans  
rather than server.xml is if you have a legacy server configuration  
that you don't want to convert.  In my view using a server.xml is a  
lot more convenient than the individual gbeans.
> As for (2), users can simply copy their server.xml into /var/ 
> catalina by overwriting the one in Geronimo,  and for example, user  
> need to copy the applications to /var/catalina/web-apps/. There  
> would be nothing different from the old days. Geronimo will provide  
> run-time enviornment.

I'd really prefer that we emphasize server assembly using geronimo  
plugins rather than manual file copying.  The two ways I've thought of  
so far for setting up a tomcat server is by replacing the tomcat  
plugin we ship or by unpacking a server.xml from a plugin to overwrite  
the server.xml we ship.  The second method seems unreliable to me,  
what happens if you deploy 2 such plugins?

I haven't checked but I hope that tomcat hot deployment doesn't work.   
IMO web apps should be deployed using a geronimo plan basically as  
they are today.  If copying an app into a tomcat hot deploy folder  
does work, the result won't relate to geronimo services in any way  
(for instance jndi, transactions, security).

> In either scenario, users' apps will be untouched and cann't be used  
> as geronimo plugin because they are still tomcat-specific.

Web apps should still be deployed as plugins using a geronimo plan.   
Otherwise they will not get any benefit from running in geronimo  
rather than plain tomcat: they won't have access to geronimo jndi,  
transactions, security, ejbs, or any other services.

At the moment we don't support context.xml files.  It would be great  
if we did but that would require quite a bit more work.

david jencks
> Anything incorrect, please hop in.
> thanks
> Jeff C
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:50 AM, David Jencks  
> <> wrote:
> IMO our way of configuring the tomcat server using server.xml is  
> working fine and the main remaining bits are really documentation.   
> Since I am terrible at documentation I hope others will take it upon  
> themselves to help with it :-)
> I'd like to see
> -- a list of stuff that doesn't work in geronimo.  My recollection  
> is that the main things that don't work are configuring jndi (such  
> as deploying datasources) and realms (this might actually work, I'm  
> not sure).
> -- at least one sample of how to use it.  I think a good starting  
> point would the the app-per-port sample that shows how to have 2 web  
> apps each exposed on a different port.  This requires setting up 2  
> entire tomcat servers and I think would be a nice example of the  
> simplicity of the server.xml configuration compared with the gbeans  
> we used up till now.  I think I'd consider deploying the server.xml  
> in a plugin that completely replaces the existing tomcat plugin.
> thoughts?
> many thanks
> david jencks

View raw message