geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rex Wang <rwo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: some console issues.
Date Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:34:13 GMT
2010/2/1 Rex Wang <rwonly@gmail.com>

>
>
> 2010/2/1 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
>
>
>> On Jan 31, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>>
>> Currently, I am trying to make some console portlets re-work.  But
>> firstly, I hope the following issues can be addressed:
>> I found the "pluto-support" don't have a groupId as
>> "org.apache.geronimo.configs", which likes the other plugins convention.
>> Instead, it inherits the parent's groupId "org.apache.geronimo.plugins". I
>> think that might be a typo, right?
>>
>>
>> I think there have been suggestions to make the groupId of all the
>> plugins, o.a.g.plugins.  I'd like to do this eventually.  I think
>> pluto-support and a couple others are the only ones this happened to yet.
>>
>
> So the result we will finally move all the plugin cars' groupId to
> "o.a.g.plugins"? My impression on the convention is, for instance, in axis2:
> axis2
>   L axis2
>   L geronimo-axis2
>   L ..
> because the parent & child have the same artifactId "axis2", so the groupId
> must be different..
> Will you plan to change all the subprojects of axis2 to "o.a.g.plugins" no
> matter they are modules or configs?
>
Or you meant move them to "o.a.g.plugins.modules" & "o.a.g.plugins.configs",
if so, there will be a lot of changes..


>
>
>> Secondly, I plan to move the dojo-war into console-ear instead being an
>> individual plugin. Since we has modified the navigation tree to base on
>> dojo, it should be a basic war, not a plugable component, for web console.
>>
>>
>> The original thinking was that dojo would be useful to other projects, so
>> we should make it available separately from the web console.
>>
> OK.
>
>
>> Also, I hope to merge the plugin portlets into console-base-portlets.
>> Because the plugin is a core feature to geronimo, I am not comfortable to
>> separate it from the base portlests and also make 3 more sub-project folders
>> under console.
>>
>>
>> I'd prefer to keep it separate.  IIRC if you don't install the plugin
>> console plugin, you can't install any new apps or plugins into the geronimo
>> server.  IMO being able to have a console without this capability is
>> important.
>>
> I see what's you concern.  If the deployment is so important, maybe the
> undeployment functions should be separated from the current portlets too?
>
> thanks
> -Rex
>
>
>>
>> The changes should be easy and relatively independent so that it won't
>> disturb the works on the other plugins. Any comments?
>>
>>
>> Sorry to be negative, but I'd prefer to avoid all these changes.  If you
>> think they are important, please explain why in more detail.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> Lei Wang (Rex)
>> rwonly AT apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org
>



-- 
Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org

Mime
View raw message