geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Add name-value configuration entry for the deployment scope ?
Date Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:53:15 GMT
I'm not sure I understand the value of the global properties.  Wouldn't you get the same effect
by turning off the appropriate module builder or module builder extension? or in some cases
a gbean?

For applications, if I understand correctly, even if we had single-pass annotation scanning,
this could be useful to indicate that an implementation bundled in the application should
be used rather than the one supplied by geronimo?  I think that is a sufficiently valuable
use case so I'm in favor of this idea.  I guess if we're going to have application level properties
like this then having global ones as well makes sense even if they are redundant.

david jencks

On Mar 1, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Ivan wrote:

> A JIRA  has been opened in the past,
will work on the things with it. If no objection, I would like to add those property first
with global scope (system.getproperty) in the first step, then will made changes to make it
> The property names I propose to add are :
> name                                                          default value
>                        true
>                    true
>                  true
>                   true
>         true
>          true
>                      true
>            true
>             true
> comment ?
> 2012/2/28 Forrest Xia <>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Russell E Glaue <> wrote:
> I think it would be really terrific if the properties that are typically provided on
the command line at startup could be instead, optionally, defined in a configuration file.
Better yet if these can be configured via the portlet.
> IUCC, those properties are only for deployment time use, it's not for server runtime
use. So no need to add them to the command line scripts, or consolidate them into a configuration
> Once they are implemented, some documents are sure to be added.
> If Geronimo is to be used in a web server farm of dozens of nodes, there needs to be
a way to remotely administer all properties. And if all properties can be setup in a config
file and no longer need to be passed on the command line, this would enhance the ability for
remote administration. The goal being the administrator never has to login to the server to
deploy new Geronimo instances and administer them.
> -RG
> On 02/28/2012 08:17 AM, Ivan wrote:
> Hi, I am thinking to try to implement this feature in the coming 3.0-beta-2,
>  the rough idea is that
> a. update our schema file to include things like :
> <environment>
>         ...
> <properties>
> <property>
> <name></name>
> <value>false</value>
> </properties>
> </envrionment>
> b. Have a PropertyDefintion GBean in geronimo-system module to describe the
> property, the class may something like :
>   @GBean
> public class PropertyDefintion<T> {
>     private String name;
>     private Type type;
>     private String description;
>     private String[] parentPropertyNames;
>     private String[] allowedValues;
>     public PropertyDefintion(String name, String type, String description,
> String[] parentPropertyNames, String[] allowedValues) {
> <> = name;
>         this.type = Type.valueOf(type);
>         this.description = description;
>         this.parentPropertyNames = parentPropertyNames;
>         this.allowedValues = allowedValues;
>     }
>   .......
> 3. May also have a PropertyContext GBean for each application, which is used to
> hold those configurations.
> 4. I have some property names in mind, including
> : The deployed application will not
> use any webservice related stuff.
>  : Need to inject some
> service ref for this
>  : Have SEI in the deployed
> application.
> : No ejb component there, with this
> configured with false, there is no need to annotation scanning in some
> scenarios, e,g, while deploying a web application.
>  ......
> ......
>     .....
> The most reason for this is that :
> a. Geronimo is suffering from bad experience from long long long deployment
> time, especially for those big application with many jar files. One of the major
> reason is that, there are too many annotation scanning there, and so far we did
> not have a uniform annotation scanning framework. With those options above, it
> is possible to ignore some process steps. e.g. if
> is configured false, then MyFacesModuleBuilder
> will not do anything.
> b. From the user list, I saw some guys try to use other java ee providers, like
> using cxf for webservice, use ri jsf implementation. Now, we may need to stop
> the related deployer to avoid some problems.
> c. There are some existing configurations here and there in Geronimo codes, all
> of them are server scope.
> For the OSGi integration side, so far, I did not have much idea for this. Maybe,
> we could make those configurations visible in the Configuration instance of the
> config admin server ???
> Any comment for this ?
> 2011/2/14 Ivan < <>>
>    JSF issue is just an example, as I find a user fire a JIRA for it. The root
>    reason is that we use system property everywhere in the geronimo codes,
>    which is of global scope. Once we want to change the behavior, all the
>    components are affected. And it would be better to have other scope
>    configurations, like deployment scope, which means the configuration is only
>    for current application deployment process. We might also have application
>    scope configurations, which might be effect for the specified application.
>    Also, I think that we need this function even when we move to a gbean-free
>    geronimo, and yes, I agree that the solution now might not applicable in the
>    future.  But, do we have a plan for the gbean-free kernel ?
>    2011/2/14 David Jencks < <>>
>        Hi Ivan,
>        If I understand your proposal this is what you can currently do in a
>        maven geronimp plugin project in the car-maven-plugin configuration
>        where you specify which deployers to start.
>        I think this makes sense but I'd rather wait to implement it until we
>        know more what a gbean-free geronimo would look like.  I suspect that
>        anything we do now would be obsolete later.
>        Would there be any confusion if you had a web app you wanted to deploy
>        on either jetty or tomcat but that included its own jsf?  Currently you
>        could use the same plan for your jetty or tomcat server but I think
>        you'd need separate plans for your proposal.  I think this is a minor
>        problem that should not block this idea.
>        thanks!
>        david jencks
>        On Feb 13, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Ivan wrote:
>         > Hi, there are many configurations in the Geronimo codes, and all of
>        them are system scope, using System.getProperty. And seems that the only
>        way to change it is to set -D while starting Geronimo. Yes, some of them
>        are of global scope, but some of them are only of deployment scope ( or
>        should be deployment scope ). for example, in the past, while users want
>        to use their own JSF API and implementations, we always ask them to stop
>        the MyFaces deployer, but if we could have a configuration only takes
>        affect in the deployment process, that would be easier.
>         > My proposal is that to add a configuration in the environment
>        elements, those values could be kept in the DeploymentContext.
>         > <deployment-configurations>
>         > <deployment-configuration>
>         > <name>****</name>
>         > <value>****</value>
>         > <deployment-configuration>
>         > </deployment-configuraitons>
>         >
>         > Aslo, we might be able to allow the users to configure them in the
>        deployment portlet, also, might be consider how to take advantage of the
>        config-admin service.
>         > Thoughts ? If no objection, I would open a JIRA and work on it later.
>         > --
>         > Ivan
>    --
>    Ivan
> --
> Ivan
> -- 
> Thanks!
> Regards, Forrest
> -- 
> Ivan

View raw message