geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <tbo...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: The state of Geronimo
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:19:19 GMT
I'm so determined I'm rebuilding M5 with print
statements in the SQLLoginModule file. Something's
clearly wrong with something (dunno what). I may be
narrowing it down. From then I guess I can build my
own modules that will connect to the database the way
I want, no?

If there's a quicker way to rebuild changes like this,
then please let me know.

I rebuild security. Then I rebuild assembly, and use
the new server.jar in the
modules/assembly/target/geronimo-1.0-M5/bin directory.

Thanks!
Tyler


--- Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/19/05, tbot55@yahoo.com <tbot55@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Lets have some discussion, maybe I'm totally
> missing
> > somethings.
> >
> > Currently I see all/most the applications I've
> looked
> > at as J2EE apps. This is the goal of Geronimo, but
> > they largly bypass the low-level purposes of
> Geronimo
> > by just sticking to J2EE and JSP. Though the
> GBeans
> > thing is cool. The goals are the same, but
> > accomplished in different ways.
> 
> The reason the apps you see today running on
> Geronimo are J2EE apps of
> some type is because that was one of the first goals
> of Geronimo -
> J2EE 1.4 certification. In time, people will
> understand that they can
> construct their own application server by assembling
> different pieces
> of software using the Geronimo kernel and GBean
> architecture and only
> then will we see the true power of Geronimo begin to
> emerge.
> 
> J2EE is simply one goal for Geronimo, it is
> certainly not *the* goal
> (after all, J2EE compliance is simply a set of
> configuration files).
> Another goal includes the result of the kernel and
> GBean architecture
> - the ability to easily plug in just about any piece
> of software to
> run in the Geronimo space. Still another goal (and a
> very important
> one) was to accomplish all of this work under the
> Apache License. I
> could go on and on, but I highly suggest reading
> through at least the
> wiki (http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/) to
> understand Geronimo from
> your own perspective.
> 
> > So why not use JBoss or some other server that
> > supports JSP and J2EE apps (even thought they may
> > require slight tweaks if they aren't fully J2EE
> > compliant). I'm sure they have much better support
> and
> > the built-in features (especially low level
> security
> > ones) are available? Why use Geronimo? It's all
> the
> > same until enough demo apps come built into the
> > distribution, demoing why someone should use
> Geronimo
> > instead of something else. It's the same stuff
> from my
> > viewpoint.
> 
> JBoss uses the LGPL and this license is incompatible
> with the Apache
> License
>
(http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html).
> 
> Why use Geronimo? I think I'll let the rest of the
> community tackle
> this one ;-). What I will say is that the last two
> years of work has
> focused on J2EE 1.4 certification. Now that that
> goal has been
> accomplished, we can all begin to direct our focus
> on items that will
> distinguish Geronimo from the rest of the pack. The
> best is yet to
> come.
> 
> One of the the most powerful features of Geronimo is
> the ability to
> assemble your own components to build your own
> application server. We
> call these custom assemblies. For example, if you're
> not developing
> EJBs, then don't run the EJB container. Geronimo's
> EJB container is
> not part of the core of the application server so it
> can be commented
> out or removed from the configuration. If you're
> only interested in
> running Tomcat and ActiveMQ, then run that. If you
> need an Enterprise
> Service Bus via a JBI container, then run
> ServiceMix, etc. The
> possibilities are endless.
> 
> > I guess I'm railing on the fact that I'm not
> getting
> > anything to work, and if I were using anything
> else I
> > wouldn't be having these problems. I'm getting
> good
> > pointers that move me forward, but holes still
> exist.
> 
> In all fairness, I think the community needs to see
> some error
> messages and better descriptions of the issues
> you're encountering in
> order to provide any assistance. Constructive,
> informed feedback
> always works better than saying something akin to
> 'it doesn't work'.
> 
> > Now, if we configured PHP and Geronimo, what is
> the
> > use of Geronimo? Why not just use Apache? There
> would
> > be no bonus in using either one, except Geronimo
> is
> > Java and can be deployed anywhere.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by configuring PHP
> and Geronimo. The
> reason i don't know is because there is neither a
> technical
> description nor a use case to convey your ideas.
> We're willing to
> entertain any ideas, but we need to understand them
> first.
> 
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print
>
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> 
> The Castor Project
> http://www.castor.org/
> 
> Apache Geronimo
> http://geronimo.apache.org/
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Mime
View raw message