Also, I would hope that we will only use System.getProperty in those bootstrap classes, for others, it is better to use the similar changes in Deployer class, with this, we could have an isolated layer there, maybe in the future, we could read the some configurations for other places, not from the System properties.

private final boolean CLEAN_UP_ON_START = PropertyContextManager.getInstance().getPropertyValue(CLEAN_UP_ON_START_KEY, Boolean.class, Boolean.TRUE);

2012/4/9 Ivan <>
I just uploaded a patch file to, to make the changes looks more clear, only important part of my local changes are included. The most changes are :

a. Update the schema to allow configure properties in the environment segments.
b. A PropertyContext chain will created for target application, it is something like child-first classloadering, and the default property context is System.getProperties(), with this, we could have global/application scope configurations.
c. PropertyContext GBean will be added for each module, so that all other GBeans would use that to determine the behavior.
d. A PropertyDefinition GBean will be created for each property, with that, I am thinking that we could have a portlet to list all the available property configurations for the server, and also, we could allow users to input some application-level configurations while deploying the applications.

I would appreciate someone could help to review those changes and drop some comments  :-)

2012/3/2 David Jencks <>
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 application-scope.
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 file.

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.


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 :
b. Have a PropertyDefintion GBean in geronimo-system module to describe the
property, the class may something like :
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.

       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




Regards, Forrest