Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 917 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2009 05:40:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Nov 2009 05:40:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 76199 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2009 05:40:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 76097 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2009 05:40:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 76089 invoked by uid 99); 17 Nov 2009 05:40:57 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:40:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ltang.ellen@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.218 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.218] (HELO mail-bw0-f218.google.com) (209.85.218.218) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:40:55 +0000 Received: by bwz10 with SMTP id 10so6705833bwz.35 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:40:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=opWdH2ckXrFoGfPqibz5GmuqsNRp8MF5TiK9s7Zb+s4=; b=IA2tNxnM7PwJgvnb/VXKreUgxIqaNw+Yha7YYTQGMGbDx7W2zkUdXJ/sDzsmdHM2Qy e8sh81a9MaFSjJ4lK6V4kKVzuuNL/UjuH/mcRwHE/CQYx0g6rEEfW+VezX8Qq8YX1r9m VbOvYpfzR5eDh14+VhxMTMBoJUNtNmChdS1cs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=RNMPq0X9kvmNtsuAuCnc0xogqJ5fikIA2+sgU429WMF/Nn1jQ9c2nSzNN+dIT1VoQg JTsAbpp3B7RusExh+C3mZ8wwZs7+INlnpe802S885j2/5cEHWVj7SlDtGejuGozUCjvo yiDL2of+eGB1S5EWe2dUuY6OILBsH/ab+W4k0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.19.146 with SMTP id a18mr3099278bkb.135.1258436433783; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:40:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <45f744e40911130557id0d9043w7ef7c30fd8e92db5@mail.gmail.com> <4AFD6D53.5040507@earthlink.net> <4AFD765B.805@apache.org> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:40:33 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Question about the "Create Plugin" portlet From: Ellen Tang To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555832e9baa9004788a903b --00032555832e9baa9004788a903b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 JIRA created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4954. Cheers! Ellen 2009/11/17 Ellen Tang > Sure. I will open a JIRA today. > > Ellen > > 2009/11/17 Shawn Jiang > > Ellen, >> >> Can you open a JIRA for this problem ? >> >> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Ellen Tang wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for replying. >>> >>> Do you mean that we can put a "expert" or "show all" option in the >>> "Create Plugin" portlet? Because I can see the "Expert User" checkbox when I >>> click the "Assemble a server" button and choose which plugins or plugin >>> groups to include in the server assembly, but I can't see any option like >>> that in the "Create Plugin" portlet or when I click the "Export Plugin" >>> button. >>> >>> Ellen >>> >>> 2009/11/13 Donald Woods >>> >>> Yep, a "expert" or "show all" option would be the safest, where the >>>> default would be not to show any org.apache.geronimo configs. >>>> >>>> >>>> -Donald >>>> >>>> >>>> Joe Bohn wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> We do something similar to this with the "expert mode" in the various >>>>> application views where we disable actions like stop, restart, and uninstall >>>>> on system modules unless the user specifies that they are an "expert user" >>>>> via the check-box. >>>>> >>>>> To make the determination in those cases we look at the prefix for the >>>>> component id to see if it is "org.apache.geronimo.configs". However, it >>>>> seems this is no longer sufficient as our prefixes have been changing to >>>>> include o.a.g.plugins and o.a.g.framework while this feature has not been >>>>> updated. Perhaps we should change this function to only check for >>>>> "org.apache.geronimo". >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> Ivan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It may sound a good idea, but the question is that how we could >>>>>> distinguish the system modules and applications deployed by users ? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2009/11/13 Ellen Tang >>>>> ltang.ellen@gmail.com>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm currently reviewing the contents on the UI of the "Plugins" >>>>>> portlet in G 2.2 admin console. I have a question for the "Create >>>>>> Plugin" function. >>>>>> >>>>>> As we can see, currently the drop-down list in the "Create Plugin" >>>>>> portlet shows all the CAR files on the server, including system >>>>>> plugins that already exist in the "%GERONIMO_HOME%\repository\" >>>>>> folder. For example, you can find the plugin >>>>>> "org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-broker/2.2-SNAPSHOT/car" in >>>>>> the directory >>>>>> >>>>>> "%GERONIMO_HOME%\repository\org\apache\geronimo\configs\activemq-broker\2.2-SNAPSHOT", >>>>>> >>>>>> which contains the "geronimo-plugin.xml" file already. However, >>>>>> according to the "Help" contents of the "Create Plugin" portlet, >>>>>> the >>>>>> function of this portlet is that "The console will generate the >>>>>> geronimo-plugin.xml file that stores the plugin metadata >>>>>> information >>>>>> for your project and package it into a car file." >>>>>> >>>>>> My question is that do we really need to include the system plugins >>>>>> in the drop-down list of the "Create Plugin" portlet? If the system >>>>>> plugins already exist in the "%GERONIMO_HOME%\repository\" folder >>>>>> and they already have the "geronimo-plugin.xml" file, the users >>>>>> would not need to use this "Create Plugin" portlet to create these >>>>>> plugins again. Besides, this portlet doesn't do anything else to >>>>>> the >>>>>> system plugins apart from exporting them as files, which the users >>>>>> already have in the repository. Therefore, I think it's more >>>>>> practical to only show the applications and/or application plugins >>>>>> in the drop-down list of this portlet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone think that it's a good idea to leave out the system >>>>>> plugins but only keep the application plugins in this portlet? >>>>>> Maybe >>>>>> we can do that in the 3.0 release? >>>>>> >>>>>> Any comments are welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Ellen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ivan >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Shawn >> > > --00032555832e9baa9004788a903b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable JIRA created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4954.

Cheers!<= br>
Ellen

2009/11/17 Ellen Tang <ltang.ellen@gmail.= com>
Sure. I will open= a JIRA today.

Ellen

2009/11/17 Sh= awn Jiang <genspring@gmail.com>

Ellen,

Can you open a JIRA for this problem ?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Ellen T= ang <ltang.ellen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

Thanks= for replying.

Do you mean that we can put a "expert" or &= quot;show all" option in the "Create Plugin" portlet? Becaus= e I can see the "Expert User" checkbox when I click the "Ass= emble a server" button and choose which plugins or plugin groups to in= clude in the server assembly, but I can't see any option like that in t= he "Create Plugin" portlet or when I click the "Export Plugi= n" button.

Ellen

2009/11/13 Donald Woods <dwood= s@apache.org>

Yep, a "expert" or "show all" option would be the safes= t, where the default would be not to show any org.apache.geronimo configs.<= br>

-Donald


Joe Bohn wrote:

We do something similar to this with the "expert mode" in the var= ious application views where we disable actions like stop, restart, and uni= nstall on system modules unless the user specifies that they are an "e= xpert user" via the check-box.

To make the determination in those cases we look at the prefix for the comp= onent id to see if it is "org.apache.geronimo.configs". =A0Howeve= r, it seems this is no longer sufficient as our prefixes have been changing= to include o.a.g.plugins and o.a.g.framework while this feature has not be= en updated. =A0Perhaps we should change this function to only check for &qu= ot;org.apache.geronimo".

Joe

Ivan wrote:
It may sound a good idea, but the question is that how we could distinguish= the system modules and applications deployed by users ?

2009/11/13 Ellen Tang <ltang.ellen@gmail.com <mailto:ltang.ellen@gmail.com>>

=A0 =A0Hi,

=A0 =A0I'm currently reviewing the contents on the UI of the "Plu= gins"
=A0 =A0portlet in G 2.2 admin console. I have a question for the "Cre= ate
=A0 =A0Plugin" function.

=A0 =A0As we can see, currently the drop-down list in the "Create Plu= gin"
=A0 =A0portlet shows all the CAR files on the server, including system
=A0 =A0plugins that already exist in the "%GERONIMO_HOME%\repository\= "
=A0 =A0folder. For example, you can find the plugin
=A0 =A0"org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-broker/2.2-SNAPSHOT/car&= quot; in
=A0 =A0the directory
=A0 =A0"%GERONIMO_HOME%\repository\org\apache\geronimo\configs\active= mq-broker\2.2-SNAPSHOT",
=A0 =A0which contains the "geronimo-plugin.xml" file already. Ho= wever,
=A0 =A0according to the "Help" contents of the "Create Plug= in" portlet, the
=A0 =A0function of this portlet is that "The console will generate th= e
=A0 =A0geronimo-plugin.xml file that stores the plugin metadata informatio= n
=A0 =A0for your project and package it into a car file."

=A0 =A0My question is that do we really need to include the system plugins=
=A0 =A0in the drop-down list of the "Create Plugin" portlet? If = the system
=A0 =A0plugins already exist in the "%GERONIMO_HOME%\repository\"= ; folder
=A0 =A0and they already have the "geronimo-plugin.xml" file, the= users
=A0 =A0would not need to use this "Create Plugin" portlet to cre= ate these
=A0 =A0plugins again. Besides, this portlet doesn't do anything else t= o the
=A0 =A0system plugins apart from exporting them as files, which the users<= br> =A0 =A0already have in the repository. Therefore, I think it's more =A0 =A0practical to only show the applications and/or application plugins<= br> =A0 =A0in the drop-down list of this portlet.

=A0 =A0Does anyone think that it's a good idea to leave out the system=
=A0 =A0plugins but only keep the application plugins in this portlet? Mayb= e
=A0 =A0we can do that in the 3.0 release?

=A0 =A0Any comments are welcome.

=A0 =A0Thanks!

=A0 =A0Ellen





--
Ivan






--
Shawn


--00032555832e9baa9004788a903b--