You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2007/08/23 16:22:14 UTC
How to assemble a server (was: Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml)
On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:13 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework
>> assembly be constructed by adding plugins to the framework
>> assembly. Just because there has been no progress on this goal in
>> the last year...
>
> I agree. That was the original vision and why the framework
> assembly was created.
>
>> I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we
>> can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
>> assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
>
> heh ... I'll bet that would work! ;-) I also agree that we're
> pretty close with some of the progress on the web console
> extensibility piece so that we can start building the assemblies
> from the plugins. That's actually what spawned the question again
> now. We'll build up assemblies from some "base" framework via
> plugins and collections of plugins (I and others have referred to
> these as templates at other times) to create our default server
> configurations or custom user/system assemblies.
>
> I was just wondering what the best "starting point" was for this.
> While a base framework without a web container is the most
> architecturally pure ... it might not be the most user friendly.
> It could be argued that it doesn't make sense to deliver to users a
> core framework that isn't good for anything unless something is
> added to it. I supposed we could hide the complexity with a
> template installer (or perhaps build installing the template/
> plugins into server initialization on the first server start or
> some other "non-install" activity). That way users that just want
> a minimal or jee5 assembly don't have to deal directly directly
> with the framework. We'll have to give this some more thought.
I don't see our starting point (e.g. the framework server) as
limiting the preconfigured servers we distribute. Even after we have
a wonderful "build your own server from plugins" tool we may well
want to ship some servers where we have added a few things... such as
a web container.
In any case I think the main bits missing from assembly from plugins
are the plugin metadata/installation being able to modify more of the
files in var and in particular var/config such as all the
artifact_aliases.properties and config-substitutions.properties.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Oh well ... you've all convinced me that it might be too soon to
> pull the plug on the framework assembly and it may very well still
> be the core assembly. Thanks to all that responded.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>>> Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we
>>> use the framework assembly? One scenario that comes to mind is
>>> an installer that lays down the framework and then installs
>>> plugins on top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal
>>> assembly already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though,
>>> assuming the installer could just remove the web container in the
>>> uncommon(?) cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly
>>> could be the base line for an installer plus double as a
>>> preconfigured assembly that serves as the low-end for our users
>>> (i.e. no installer required). Plus, since the minimal assembly
>>> has a web container we could use a web UI for the installer
>>> instead of some native app like we used to have -- actually the
>>> "installer" is more like a plugin configurer from that point of
>>> view.
>>>
>>> What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly
>>> could be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very
>>> cool btw!!) play into this discussion?
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
>>>> framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
>>>> removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
>>>>
>>>> At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal
>>>> assembly (without even a web container) for building up a
>>>> pluggable server. However, it seems like the tide is changing to
>>>> always expect a web container in the smallest framework assembly
>>>> (ie. the minimal assemblies we already have). There's been a
>>>> lot of cool work on the pluggable console and it seems like are
>>>> heading in a direction to make this the primary interface for
>>>> building and managing the server ... but of course it requires a
>>>> web container as a minimal starting point.
>>>>
>>>> So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly
>>>> and work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies
>>>> should always include a web container?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dwoods@apache.org wrote:
>>>>> Author: dwoods
>>>>> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>>> New Revision: 568632
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
>>>>> Modified:
>>>>> geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>>> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/
>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/
>>>>> assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?
>>>>> rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
>>>>> ==================================================================
>>>>> ============
>>>>> --- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>>> (original)
>>>>> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>>> Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
>>>>> <dependencies>
>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>> + <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>>>>> + <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
>>>>> + <version>${version}</version>
>>>>> + </dependency>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + <dependency>
>>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
>>>>> <artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
>>>>> <version>${version}</version>
>>>