Mailing-List: contact user-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer;
  b=3n95opiOF45gnY0GR9et8sOe0XR/1MJUCgxHdt3rH4rF1dvdNTbdo3EDegsiIsjO5FnKOL5uHj5QImtuS8gZ/Zmy+SAXdiKPuhahBRfVWQ3s3jv2TIlKHaYU2dw1Js4VotH+B2Cj/MaF+CxrP/PNC+8X5xtvDklObc6CIyPcN6U=
  ;
Message-Id: <0BB84AE2-1687-4F86-8E7E-2D2875B9E9C7@yahoo.com>
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
To: user@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <22349251.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: your current Geronimo evaluation
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:09:45 -0800
References: <22329850.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <7d6453040903040919u3d7877cdvd012c5eb7a2cfb02@mail.gmail.com>
 <22349251.post@talk.nabble.com>


On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:44 AM, Aldian_00 wrote:

>
> Ok thank you very much to both of you. I am sorry if I have been  
> unclear. I
> wil now give some more explanations.
>
> My company owns a Network Management System. We plan to developp a  
> NGOSS
> (Next Generation Operations Support System). It will be interfaced  
> on front
> end with a few client Web Browsers or desktop applications, and on  
> back end
> with the NMS using load balancing. We actually plan to implement  
> only a few
> features, but in the end it might become a very big software. So  
> when I ask
> if it is easy, it is because at the end many persons in our  
> developpement
> team will have to migrate from the old technologies they are currently
> working on to this new one, and we don't want to loose too much time  
> with
> the complexities of the system.
>
> In consequence of the fact many parts of software will come from many
> different person, our deployment plans will probably be really  
> complex ones,
> so if you say it is inadequate on geronimo, we might consider using  
> another
> one, what do you think?

I think you will have the best results thus:
use maven for your build system. Set up a nexus instance to manage  
company-wide released code distribution.  Maven can be extremely  
annoying sometimes but its the only solution I know of that provides  
any real support for managing development of large projects with  
managed code exchange between components.

  Use geronimo for your app server and assembling your application  
bits into geronimo plugins. push them to the nexus repo, and assemble  
custom servers for the various test and production scenarios you  
need.  Basically this means you can use maven to manage the complexity  
of your component interdependencies.

This approach is a lot easier on trunk (2.2-SNAPSHOT) but can be done  
with released versions of geronimo.  In trunk we are starting to use  
it in several places to assemble special purpose servers to test  
particular subsystems.  For instance, the activemq and monitoring bits  
have custom servers.

This isn't documented as well as I'd like.  There's a little bit of  
documentation here:  http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC22/assembling-a-server-using-maven.html

Hope this helps and please ask as many questions as you'd like :-)  I  
think the whole idea of using maven to attach the server bits needed  
to your application to assemble a server is rather new and we could  
certainly use advice from large projects on how to improve our  
implementation.

thanks
david jencks

>
>
> best regards
>
> Aldian
>
>
>
>
>
> Xasima Xirohata wrote:
>>
>> Boring note.
>>
>> I have a little remark on the "easy" word in your test questions. I
>> think that this word DOES specify the aim of the comparing, so your
>> tests may be named as "the best server to start for newbie/common
>> task"-competition. But it's not very good to perform comparing ONLY
>> for newbies or for common projects.
>>
>> EASY TO INSTALL
>> For example, the "easy to install"-test supposes "is it easy to
>> install geronimo for regular needs". Yeap, it's easy. But nothing too
>> specific (or extreme) in comparing with the installation of other
>> products I think. Moreover, I would never take into account the
>> 'simplicity of installation' since no something complex occurs in any
>> of them if no troubles start.
>>
>> But just imagine, that some ports (RMI/services) are already busy,  
>> you
>> has misplaced your java-environment installation, you want to upgrade
>> server or specific parts, and so on. If it occurs I insist that, for
>> example, geronimo is much easy to tune or fix than ... (i can't
>> compare with jboss or glassfish now, so put what i know) ..regular  
>> IBM
>> WebSphere (not the community edition).
>>
>> As for me, all servers are easy to install in normal circumstances,
>> but i don't know how easy to tune or fix JBOSS/Glassfish installation
>> if something goes wrong.
>>
>> The next question is what actually you 're going to install easily.  
>> If
>> it's just common out-of-box server, it's not the problem for any of
>> them. But if you're in need to bundle your server with specific
>> services (change the web services implementation, change any of jee
>> SPINE services like JMS and so on), or even cut off most services to
>> reduce your server up to specific configuration (we just tried to
>> perform this some time ago when want to ship little server to run on
>> customer side with derby as db), then i think you probably need to
>> choose geronimo.
>> Geronimo tends to support different projects as parts and allow easy
>> substitution / reducing between them. As far as I know, it's better
>> for this purpose than others. JBoss and Glassfish used to avoid such
>> of reconfiguration as REGULAR, easy process, although they has hk2/
>> module architectures too.
>>
>> Thus, on my point of view Geronimo is more easy to tune and  
>> configure,
>> more easy to fix. But if compare just an typical installation process
>> with no troubles or specific reasons occurs, then probably all of  
>> them
>> (and even an IBM WebSphere) do this process easily.
>>
>> EASY DEPLOYMENT
>>
>> Geronimo allow deployment both from console, from web interface and
>> from IDE, although it's possible to monitor the server using maven
>> plugins. The same is for rest of servers (JBOSS/Glassfish). I don't
>> think that we need to compare which GUI is most easy to use to  
>> deploy.
>> It's interesting for me to compare the ability to manage dependencies
>> and services in complex projects. What's actually more easy to write
>> (specific plans) and use (manage): gbeans + geronimo repositories,  
>> hk2
>> + repository, jboss and (?) osgi.
>>
>> So it's not question to do simple things easy (since all of servers
>> comparatively simple), it's a question if it's possible to perform
>> complex things at all (with reasonable time or at least
>> well-documented).
>>
>> EASY ADMINISTRATION
>> Is it a question to do simple administration (JMX / Deployed
>> Application, Memory Consumption) easily? As for me the more
>> interesting question is how to monitor and manage an application
>> server in cluster environment what we can manage / administrate. If
>> it's possible to easily integrate server with predefined  monitoring
>> service (*).
>>
>> EASY  IDE INTERFACING
>> 6 (If you don't know what to do, IDE will not help)... I will mark 10
>> if even you don't sure exactly what to do, IDE will assist you
>> COMPLETELY.
>>
>> EASY DEVELOPMENT
>>
>> Agree with Juergen Weber
>>
>>> 5 (geronimo deployment plans like this one are really, really  
>>> difficult:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/daytrader/trunk/plans/dayTrader-db2-9.1-XA-plan.xml) 
>>> ,
>>> the JEE standard parts are easy, the Java part of GBeans is easy,  
>>> too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (*) for example http://www.hyperic.com/demo/monitoring-screenshots.html
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Aldian_00 <aldian.gp@gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everybody
>>>
>>> I am currently working on a comparative study of Jonas, Jboss,  
>>> Glassfish,
>>> Geronimo. For all technical questions, I already have the  
>>> information on
>>> the
>>> internet, and those four are the only one application servers that  
>>> can
>>> meet
>>> my needs. But I would like to know what do experienced user think  
>>> about
>>> their ergonomy. For each of them, I am posting the same question  
>>> on their
>>> respective forum. Please be honest and objective so that I can  
>>> make a
>>> good
>>> comparison (even if for you Geronimo is clearly the best ;)).
>>>
>>> About Geronimo, what evaluation (please give a mark from 1=worst to
>>> 10=best)
>>> would you give concerning the following tests?
>>>
>>> * easy to install
>>> * easy deployment
>>> * easy administration
>>> * easy IDE interfacing
>>> * easy developement
>>>
>>> Feel free to comment about the others softwares if you know  
>>> something
>>> about
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Thank You very much !
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/your-current-Geronimo-evaluation-tp22329850s134p22329850.html
>>> Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Users mailing list archive at  
>>> Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>>     ~ Xasima Xirohata ~
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/your-current-Geronimo-evaluation-tp22329850s134p22349251.html
> Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Users mailing list archive at  
> Nabble.com.
>