Mailing-List: contact user-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=zyPGq/kZdQ2UQrHUOnCUJEcPvFQ0r5A6hW8x4euLX+F0cblMayGperg0t5DfeAjTR7elZrvuObpf1ur/+s/UuuWZs+ClQNqjwyu6971fCdyGNT6N9ZBOiGpT9k1X2osMAgjRj+cmIAtR72y3ohElp6WCuTxfHYOEsVW9G3BEmfU=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
In-Reply-To: <20051020051919.93766.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20051020051919.93766.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <6a624eb9fdfedba67cf9a758dfd9d7b0@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The state of Geronimo
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:02:25 -0700
To: user@geronimo.apache.org


On Oct 19, 2005, at 10:19 PM, <tbot55@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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?

That should work.  BTW, the SQLLoginModule is, umm, less than the most 
sophisticated code ever seen, so if you want to improve it we would all 
be appreciative.  See 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-409.  I think some easy 
improvements would be to use prepared statements with the user info as 
parameters rather than fetching all the info each time.

Another, deeper, issue is that it makes a direct connection to the 
database rather than getting one out of a connection pool.  I have 
never thought this was a good idea.  However, jndi is not available to 
look up datasources in a login module, so you would have to get the 
datasource more directly from a ManagedConnectionFactoryWrapper gbean.  
The call would be IIRC

DataSource ds = (DataSource)kernel.invoke(mcfName, "$getResource");

This would let you use pooled connections which ought to be faster for 
most databases.

I do wonder what the cause of your problems might be because there is a 
working unit test for this login module.
>
> 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.

This will definitely work.  I usually find it is more efficient to 
debug the server in an IDE though.    I use IDEA and start the server 
like this:

java -Xdebug -Xnoagent -Djava.compiler=NONE 
-Xrunjdwp:transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=n,address=5005 -jar 
bin/server.jar

and have a remote debugging configuration for that in IDEA.  I think 
you can do essentially the same thing in eclipse.

thanks,
david jencks

>
> 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
>