geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russell E Glaue <>
Subject Re: Updating Configuring Virtual Host in Tomcat, for G3.0
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:26:52 GMT
I think Geronimo should go with a full OSGi implementation as a core, GBeans can 
take a back seat to OSGi if we can put all service configurations into the OSGi 
service registry.

I want to believe that as an industry, most projects will become compatible as 
an OSGi service. Take for example Apache JAMES which has already been proven can 
be implemented as a GBean-service in the Geronimo stack.
	If a project wanted to take advantage of Geronimo as a framework, it makes 
sense that there would be more support in any community to move towards a 
general OSGi compatibility instead of specific customization for a single 
proprietary project.
	For the future of Geronimo, it will be easy to adopt other projects as they 
move towards becoming compliant as a OSGi service.

OSGi should be the focus for the future of Geronimo.
If there is reluctance to move Geronimo into a full OSGi implementation, then I 
feel the only alternative is to fully support GBeans for complete Geronimo 

To not embrace OSGi, and to move away from GBeans to file-based configuration, 
is to degrade the ability of Geronimo to enter the enterprise. We who must 
managed 100 web servers need remote management and deployment.

Of course, like I already said, current commercial offering like Oracle iPlanet 
Web Server (formally Sun Enterprise Web Server) use remote configuration through 
file-based configuration. So this approach is not to be frowned upon. But the 
future is moving towards OSGi. We are beginning to have this in a lot of our 
daily-used devices like mobile. Better to start on the path towards OSGi now 
than have to make up for the bigger gap later.


On 02/29/2012 12:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> My current viewpoint on gbeans is that in an osgi framework they are a bad idea since
their capabilities are better expressed using osgi services and config admin.  I am not all
that confident that there is enough interest in actually rewriting the code in this way, but
architecturally I think it is the best alternative.
> For things like tomcat server.xml there's a big question of the best size of components.
 We originally tried to have a geronimo component (gbean) for the smallest size tomcat component,
and this has caused a lot of problems including really bad impedance mismatch on component
lifecycles and forcing tomcat users to learn a totally unfamiliar configuration interface.
 At the moment we have 2 competing configuration mechanisms, server.xml and gbeans, and I
think this is too complicated and confusing.
> Another possibility might be to have a single tomcat service that accepts the server.xml
from config admin and sets up the entire tomcat server from that.  If you want to change something
you edit server.xml in config admin.  Farming could be handled by a distributed config admin
> I haven't looked into tomcat configuration much since I started learning about config
admin and managed service factories so there might be another way to do this with less monolithic
tomcat configuration but still through osgi mechanisms.
> What do you think?
> thanks
> david jencks
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that at some future milestone, Tomcat would no longer be configurable
with a GBean deployment?
>> Is it being considered that in regards to newer versions of Tomcat, the GBean may
not be updated to incorporate newly introduced tomcat parameters?
>> That would suggest that GBean configuration for Geronimo's Tomcat will become deprecated.
>> How would it be suggested that in this case Geronimo's Tomcat could be centrally
managed? Do we go back to pushing configuration files? That would change how plugin based
farms are managed.
>> -RG
>> On 02/29/2012 08:56 AM, Ivan wrote:
>>> Yes, I agree that all the options should be documented, as you mentioned, we
>>> need it in many places.
>>> For the server.xml, I am thinking that it should be the main direction for the
>>> tomcat container configuration in the future, IMHO.
>>> As in the past versions, we find that  those wrapper GBeans become more and more
>>> complicated for. e.g. with the new Tomcat version,some new parameters are
>>> introduced, and it is required to add those attributes for existing GBeans. From
>>> another side, it is really not user-friendly to configure those things with
>>> GBean. e.g. While configuring cluster, users may need to add a long GBean
>>> configurations in the config.xml, which is error proven.
>>> 2012/2/29 Russell E Glaue<<>>
>>>     Do you think that var/catalina/server.xml should be the primary emphasis
>>>     managing the default web container?
>>>     I think all options should be documented, but that one can be first.
>>>     Geronimo can run multiple web containers, but those have to be configured
>>>     via a GBean. So the virtual hosts would be configured similarly in these
>>>     environments.
>>>     And when Geronimo is in a Farming environment, GBean deployment will be the
>>>     requirement.
>>>     <>
>>>     I believe a GBean option for all configurations should be documented when
>>>     possible. Then Geronimo can be configured remotely.
>>>     -RG
>>>     On 02/28/2012 07:28 PM, Ivan wrote:
>>>         Thanks for updating this, I am wondering whether we would encourage the
>>>         users to
>>>         use the server.xml to configure virtual host, although the gbean way
>>>         still works
>>>         now.
>>>         2012/2/29 Russell E Glaue<<>
>>>         <<>>>
>>>             I am going to start working on this document for G3.0
>>>         <>
>>>         <
>>>         <>>
>>>             In addition to updating what is there, I am going to add additional
>>>             information on how to deploy a plan with the deployer to configure
>>>         virtual
>>>             hosts.
>>>             Any comments/suggestions?
>>>             I will use this plan, which I have verified works.
>>>             -
>>>         <module xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.____org/xml/ns/deployment-1.2
>>>         <
>>>         <>>">
>>>         <environment>
>>>         <moduleId>
>>>         <groupId>org.example.configs.____virtualhosts</groupId>
>>>         <artifactId>virtualhost1</____artifactId>
>>>         <version>1.0</version>
>>>         <type>car</type>
>>>         </moduleId>
>>>         <dependencies>
>>>         <dependency>
>>>         <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.____configs</groupId>
>>>         <artifactId>tomcat7</____artifactId>
>>>         <type>car</type>
>>>         </dependency>
>>>         </dependencies>
>>>         <hidden-classes/>
>>>         <non-overridable-classes/>
>>>         </environment>
>>>         <gbean name="TomcatVirtualHost_1"
>>>             class="org.apache.geronimo.____tomcat.HostGBean">
>>>         <attribute
>>>           name="className">org.apache.____catalina.core.StandardHost</____attribute>
>>>         <attribute name="initParams">
>>>         <>  <>
>>>                                                  appBase=
>>>                                                  workDir=work</attribute>
>>>         <reference name="Engine">
>>>         <name>TomcatEngine</name>
>>>         </reference>
>>>         </gbean>
>>>         </module>
>>>             -
>>>         --
>>>         Ivan
>>> --
>>> Ivan

View raw message