geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time to upgrade or drop Minimal assemblies from 3.0 builds?
Date Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:04:47 GMT

On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:

> 
> 
> On 6/10/10 11:22 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>> 
>>> Now that I have the initial web profile assemblies created and hooked
>>> into our TCK harness, I'd like to circle back around on this.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I like Option #1 - Upgrade and rename minimal assemblies to
>>> EBA based assemblies.  This way, all of the assemblies we build and
>>> release will support the Aries EBA programming model.  Users can choose
>>> to build their own custom assemblies if they choose and leave out the
>>> EBA and WAB support if they do not require it.  Also, it looks like we
>>> will have to add a few more modules into the web profile assemblies to
>>> handle some of the TCK tests, along with missing console, monitoring
>>> agent, clustering, .... which will probably make those assemblies grow
>>> from the current 65MB to more like 80MB.
>> 
>> The last time I checked (over a month ago), I seem to recall that an EBA assembly
was pulling in components that I didn't think belonged in an EBA assembly (e.g. ActiveMQ).
Was that fixed/changed? 
> 
> No ActiveMQ in the current EBA assembly.
> 
> On that note, I recall the OSGi EEG is looking at adding Message Driven
> Services. So, "EBA" is going to be a moving target overtime... And may
> not always be a "minimal" environment.

I thought eba was a packaging idea, and the nature of the bundles inside would determine what
happened next.  So I would expect us to be able to support eba with just a web extender.

>> 
> 
> Well, that could become a problem for our Web profile assembly which
> includes EBA, as the TCK docs mention that if a web profile server
> includes additional/optional Java EE technologies (aka. JMS or web
> services from the Full profile) then the corresponding TCK buckets or
> stand-alone tests must also be run.

We'll have to run the connector tests I think anyway.
> 
> 
>> I can imagine users being interested in WAB, EBA, Java EE Web, and Java EE Full functionality.
I'm not sure that a multitude of assemblies is where we want to end up, however. I'm sure
we don't want to be building 8 separate assemblies. 
>> 
> 
> True, but you still end up with a download that includes everything,
> including the admin console.  Still think we need a "smaller" download
> option for 3.0 that doesn't include the console....
> 

Personally I don't really care as long as we have something we can ship :-)  I think what
is a good idea will come out as we work on it.

thanks
david jencks



> 
>> I've mentioned this before, but I would like to consider packaging multiple configs
(or allowing an assembly to easily run a subset of the installed functionality). Something
like:
>> 
>> geronimo run -c wab-config.xml
>> geronimo run -c eba-config.xml
>> etc.
>> 
>> --kevan


Mime
View raw message