You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@4quarters.com> on 2004/02/14 14:19:09 UTC
velocity-based debug console
Dain wanted to convert the existing console-web webapp from JSP to
Velocity. I took that on and in the tiny bits of time I've had
available over the last 2 days, the basic thing is working.
Like N. Alex's console-web, it shows a list of all mbeans, and you can
click to get attributes and such for the mbean. The difference is that
it's velocity based, very simple, and artistically challenged. I
didn't want to spend time on art before we thought more on how things
should be structured, and because I'm pretty bad at it.
I have a few ideas on what to change, but I wanted to get it in so
others could play and comment. Also, I know that this isn't meant to
be the console, but rather a 'debug tool', and want input on what to do
with it.
So, should I check in as a new module? 'debug-tools' maybe? For now,
it will parallel console-web in structure, but other debug tools can be
added over time. Let me know...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by Matthew David Kurjanowicz <mk...@cc.gatech.edu>.
The Swing console is definitly an "application" - it's just a custom
service set using Geronimo.
-Matt Kurjanowicz
> We've got the following:
>
> CLI console
> Swing console
> Web console
> JMX debugging console
>
> So perhaps we should have:
>
> /geronimo/applications/console/cli
> /geronimo/applications/console/swing
> /geronimo/applications/console/web
> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>
> Can they all be classified as applications? I know the two web apps
> can--if the other two can as well I'm game for an "applications" branch
> : ) We should also consider how to name the .WAR files for the two web
> applications in this list.
>
> I guess "jmx-debug.war" and "server-management.war" might work out. So
> you'd have "...8080/jmx-debug/" and "...8080/server-management/"
>
> I'm happy with however you guys decide to name these, as long as they
> make some logical sense to the users and aren't any more verbose than is
> necessary.
>
> --
> N. Alex Rupp
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dain Sundstrom" <da...@coredevelopers.net>
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: velocity-based debug console
>
>
>> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
>> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of each
>> type (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff
>> is not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type>
>> doesn't really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better,
>> unfortunately that name implies it is a debug tool for web
>> applications, which it
>> definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
>> convention.
>>
>> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules into a
>> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
>> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to use a
>> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
>> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>>
>> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming
>> convention for applications.
>>
>> -dain
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by David Jencks <da...@coredevelopers.net>.
On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 07:24 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> ok- how about we punt on the A/B/C and just do
>
> /geronimo/applications/jmx-debug-web
that would be excellent.
thanks
david jencks
>
> or such?
>
> On Feb 16, 2004, at 6:21 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, February 16, 2004, at 02:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2004, at 5:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>> <howl of protest>I would rather you used one less level so we don't
>>>> have to rewrite all of top level maven.xml to include it in the
>>>> normal build. </howl of protest>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would you have to rewrite?
>>
>> It might not be as bad as I fear, but currently maven.xml is designed
>> to build sub projects in ./A/B (A == specs, modules, B== connector,
>> kernel, etc). adding another "A" type is trivial. Adding another
>> layer (/A/B/C) will take some study to do.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 16, 2004, at 01:53 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If no one objects then, I'm going to go with :
>>>>>
>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>>>>
>>>>> and get things in there and working so others can play. Right
>>>>> now, it's just read-only, but still vaguely useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll wait a bit for any agreement or howls of protest.
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 15, 2004, at 11:09 PM, n. alex rupp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We've got the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CLI console
>>>>>> Swing console
>>>>>> Web console
>>>>>> JMX debugging console
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So perhaps we should have:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/cli
>>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/swing
>>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/web
>>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can they all be classified as applications? I know the two web
>>>>>> apps can--if the
>>>>>> other two can as well I'm game for an "applications" branch : )
>>>>>> We should also
>>>>>> consider how to name the .WAR files for the two web applications
>>>>>> in this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess "jmx-debug.war" and "server-management.war" might work
>>>>>> out. So you'd
>>>>>> have "...8080/jmx-debug/" and "...8080/server-management/"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm happy with however you guys decide to name these, as long as
>>>>>> they make some
>>>>>> logical sense to the users and aren't any more verbose than is
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> N. Alex Rupp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Dain Sundstrom" <da...@coredevelopers.net>
>>>>>> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:24 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: velocity-based debug console
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
>>>>>>> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of
>>>>>>> each type
>>>>>>> (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new
>>>>>>> stuff is
>>>>>>> not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type>
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better, unfortunately
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> name implies it is a debug tool for web applications, which it
>>>>>>> definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
>>>>>>> convention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules
>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g.
>>>>>>> geronimo/modules/console-web
>>>>>>> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to
>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
>>>>>>> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming
>>>>>>> convention
>>>>>>> for applications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -dain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
>>>>> geir@4quarters.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
>>> geir@4quarters.com
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
> geir@4quarters.com
>
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@4quarters.com>.
ok- how about we punt on the A/B/C and just do
/geronimo/applications/jmx-debug-web
or such?
On Feb 16, 2004, at 6:21 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 16, 2004, at 02:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2004, at 5:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> <howl of protest>I would rather you used one less level so we don't
>>> have to rewrite all of top level maven.xml to include it in the
>>> normal build. </howl of protest>
>>>
>>
>> Why would you have to rewrite?
>
> It might not be as bad as I fear, but currently maven.xml is designed
> to build sub projects in ./A/B (A == specs, modules, B== connector,
> kernel, etc). adding another "A" type is trivial. Adding another
> layer (/A/B/C) will take some study to do.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>>
>>
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 16, 2004, at 01:53 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>> If no one objects then, I'm going to go with :
>>>>
>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>>>
>>>> and get things in there and working so others can play. Right now,
>>>> it's just read-only, but still vaguely useful.
>>>>
>>>> I'll wait a bit for any agreement or howls of protest.
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 15, 2004, at 11:09 PM, n. alex rupp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We've got the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> CLI console
>>>>> Swing console
>>>>> Web console
>>>>> JMX debugging console
>>>>>
>>>>> So perhaps we should have:
>>>>>
>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/cli
>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/swing
>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/web
>>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>>>>
>>>>> Can they all be classified as applications? I know the two web
>>>>> apps can--if the
>>>>> other two can as well I'm game for an "applications" branch : )
>>>>> We should also
>>>>> consider how to name the .WAR files for the two web applications
>>>>> in this list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess "jmx-debug.war" and "server-management.war" might work
>>>>> out. So you'd
>>>>> have "...8080/jmx-debug/" and "...8080/server-management/"
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy with however you guys decide to name these, as long as
>>>>> they make some
>>>>> logical sense to the users and aren't any more verbose than is
>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> N. Alex Rupp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Dain Sundstrom" <da...@coredevelopers.net>
>>>>> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:24 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: velocity-based debug console
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
>>>>>> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of
>>>>>> each type
>>>>>> (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type>
>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better, unfortunately
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> name implies it is a debug tool for web applications, which it
>>>>>> definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
>>>>>> convention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules
>>>>>> into a
>>>>>> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
>>>>>> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to
>>>>>> use a
>>>>>> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
>>>>>> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming
>>>>>> convention
>>>>>> for applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -dain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
>>>> geir@4quarters.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
>> geir@4quarters.com
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by David Jencks <da...@coredevelopers.net>.
On Monday, February 16, 2004, at 02:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2004, at 5:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> <howl of protest>I would rather you used one less level so we don't
>> have to rewrite all of top level maven.xml to include it in the
>> normal build. </howl of protest>
>>
>
> Why would you have to rewrite?
It might not be as bad as I fear, but currently maven.xml is designed
to build sub projects in ./A/B (A == specs, modules, B== connector,
kernel, etc). adding another "A" type is trivial. Adding another
layer (/A/B/C) will take some study to do.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Monday, February 16, 2004, at 01:53 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>>> If no one objects then, I'm going to go with :
>>>
>>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>>
>>> and get things in there and working so others can play. Right now,
>>> it's just read-only, but still vaguely useful.
>>>
>>> I'll wait a bit for any agreement or howls of protest.
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 15, 2004, at 11:09 PM, n. alex rupp wrote:
>>>
>>>> We've got the following:
>>>>
>>>> CLI console
>>>> Swing console
>>>> Web console
>>>> JMX debugging console
>>>>
>>>> So perhaps we should have:
>>>>
>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/cli
>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/swing
>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/web
>>>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>>>
>>>> Can they all be classified as applications? I know the two web
>>>> apps can--if the
>>>> other two can as well I'm game for an "applications" branch : ) We
>>>> should also
>>>> consider how to name the .WAR files for the two web applications
>>>> in this list.
>>>>
>>>> I guess "jmx-debug.war" and "server-management.war" might work out.
>>>> So you'd
>>>> have "...8080/jmx-debug/" and "...8080/server-management/"
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy with however you guys decide to name these, as long as
>>>> they make some
>>>> logical sense to the users and aren't any more verbose than is
>>>> necessary.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> N. Alex Rupp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Dain Sundstrom" <da...@coredevelopers.net>
>>>> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:24 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: velocity-based debug console
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
>>>>> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of each
>>>>> type
>>>>> (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff
>>>>> is
>>>>> not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type>
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better, unfortunately
>>>>> that
>>>>> name implies it is a debug tool for web applications, which it
>>>>> definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
>>>>> convention.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules into
>>>>> a
>>>>> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
>>>>> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to
>>>>> use a
>>>>> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
>>>>> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>>>>>
>>>>> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming
>>>>> convention
>>>>> for applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> -dain
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
>>> geir@4quarters.com
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
> geir@4quarters.com
>
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@4quarters.com>.
On Feb 16, 2004, at 5:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> <howl of protest>I would rather you used one less level so we don't
> have to rewrite all of top level maven.xml to include it in the normal
> build. </howl of protest>
>
Why would you have to rewrite?
> david jencks
>
> On Monday, February 16, 2004, at 01:53 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> If no one objects then, I'm going to go with :
>>
>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>
>> and get things in there and working so others can play. Right now,
>> it's just read-only, but still vaguely useful.
>>
>> I'll wait a bit for any agreement or howls of protest.
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> On Feb 15, 2004, at 11:09 PM, n. alex rupp wrote:
>>
>>> We've got the following:
>>>
>>> CLI console
>>> Swing console
>>> Web console
>>> JMX debugging console
>>>
>>> So perhaps we should have:
>>>
>>> /geronimo/applications/console/cli
>>> /geronimo/applications/console/swing
>>> /geronimo/applications/console/web
>>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>>
>>> Can they all be classified as applications? I know the two web apps
>>> can--if the
>>> other two can as well I'm game for an "applications" branch : ) We
>>> should also
>>> consider how to name the .WAR files for the two web applications in
>>> this list.
>>>
>>> I guess "jmx-debug.war" and "server-management.war" might work out.
>>> So you'd
>>> have "...8080/jmx-debug/" and "...8080/server-management/"
>>>
>>> I'm happy with however you guys decide to name these, as long as
>>> they make some
>>> logical sense to the users and aren't any more verbose than is
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> --
>>> N. Alex Rupp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dain Sundstrom" <da...@coredevelopers.net>
>>> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: velocity-based debug console
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
>>>> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of each
>>>> type
>>>> (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff is
>>>> not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type>
>>>> doesn't
>>>> really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better, unfortunately that
>>>> name implies it is a debug tool for web applications, which it
>>>> definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
>>>> convention.
>>>>
>>>> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules into a
>>>> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
>>>> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to
>>>> use a
>>>> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
>>>> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>>>>
>>>> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming
>>>> convention
>>>> for applications.
>>>>
>>>> -dain
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
>> geir@4quarters.com
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by David Jencks <da...@coredevelopers.net>.
<howl of protest>I would rather you used one less level so we don't
have to rewrite all of top level maven.xml to include it in the normal
build. </howl of protest>
david jencks
On Monday, February 16, 2004, at 01:53 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> If no one objects then, I'm going to go with :
>
> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>
> and get things in there and working so others can play. Right now,
> it's just read-only, but still vaguely useful.
>
> I'll wait a bit for any agreement or howls of protest.
>
> geir
>
>
> On Feb 15, 2004, at 11:09 PM, n. alex rupp wrote:
>
>> We've got the following:
>>
>> CLI console
>> Swing console
>> Web console
>> JMX debugging console
>>
>> So perhaps we should have:
>>
>> /geronimo/applications/console/cli
>> /geronimo/applications/console/swing
>> /geronimo/applications/console/web
>> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>>
>> Can they all be classified as applications? I know the two web apps
>> can--if the
>> other two can as well I'm game for an "applications" branch : ) We
>> should also
>> consider how to name the .WAR files for the two web applications in
>> this list.
>>
>> I guess "jmx-debug.war" and "server-management.war" might work out.
>> So you'd
>> have "...8080/jmx-debug/" and "...8080/server-management/"
>>
>> I'm happy with however you guys decide to name these, as long as they
>> make some
>> logical sense to the users and aren't any more verbose than is
>> necessary.
>>
>> --
>> N. Alex Rupp
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dain Sundstrom" <da...@coredevelopers.net>
>> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: velocity-based debug console
>>
>>
>>> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
>>> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of each
>>> type
>>> (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff is
>>> not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type>
>>> doesn't
>>> really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better, unfortunately that
>>> name implies it is a debug tool for web applications, which it
>>> definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
>>> convention.
>>>
>>> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules into a
>>> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
>>> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to use
>>> a
>>> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
>>> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>>>
>>> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming
>>> convention
>>> for applications.
>>>
>>> -dain
>>
>>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
> geir@4quarters.com
>
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@4quarters.com>.
If no one objects then, I'm going to go with :
/geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
and get things in there and working so others can play. Right now,
it's just read-only, but still vaguely useful.
I'll wait a bit for any agreement or howls of protest.
geir
On Feb 15, 2004, at 11:09 PM, n. alex rupp wrote:
> We've got the following:
>
> CLI console
> Swing console
> Web console
> JMX debugging console
>
> So perhaps we should have:
>
> /geronimo/applications/console/cli
> /geronimo/applications/console/swing
> /geronimo/applications/console/web
> /geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
>
> Can they all be classified as applications? I know the two web apps
> can--if the
> other two can as well I'm game for an "applications" branch : ) We
> should also
> consider how to name the .WAR files for the two web applications in
> this list.
>
> I guess "jmx-debug.war" and "server-management.war" might work out.
> So you'd
> have "...8080/jmx-debug/" and "...8080/server-management/"
>
> I'm happy with however you guys decide to name these, as long as they
> make some
> logical sense to the users and aren't any more verbose than is
> necessary.
>
> --
> N. Alex Rupp
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dain Sundstrom" <da...@coredevelopers.net>
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: velocity-based debug console
>
>
>> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
>> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of each
>> type
>> (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff is
>> not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type> doesn't
>> really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better, unfortunately that
>> name implies it is a debug tool for web applications, which it
>> definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
>> convention.
>>
>> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules into a
>> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
>> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to use a
>> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
>> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>>
>> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming
>> convention
>> for applications.
>>
>> -dain
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by "n. alex rupp" <ru...@umn.edu>.
We've got the following:
CLI console
Swing console
Web console
JMX debugging console
So perhaps we should have:
/geronimo/applications/console/cli
/geronimo/applications/console/swing
/geronimo/applications/console/web
/geronimo/applications/console/jmx-debug
Can they all be classified as applications? I know the two web apps can--if the
other two can as well I'm game for an "applications" branch : ) We should also
consider how to name the .WAR files for the two web applications in this list.
I guess "jmx-debug.war" and "server-management.war" might work out. So you'd
have "...8080/jmx-debug/" and "...8080/server-management/"
I'm happy with however you guys decide to name these, as long as they make some
logical sense to the users and aren't any more verbose than is necessary.
--
N. Alex Rupp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dain Sundstrom" <da...@coredevelopers.net>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: velocity-based debug console
> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of each type
> (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff is
> not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type> doesn't
> really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better, unfortunately that
> name implies it is a debug tool for web applications, which it
> definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
> convention.
>
> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules into a
> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to use a
> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>
> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming convention
> for applications.
>
> -dain
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by David Jencks <da...@coredevelopers.net>.
> geronimo/applications/console-web/ allows the applications to be built
> with a trivial modification of the maven stuff.
> geronimo/applications/console/web/ requires a lot more fiddling with
> top level maven.xml. how many of these applications are we going to
> support? I vote for geronimo/applications/console-web/.
(Hope this is intelligible, mac mail client is acting weird with
quoting stuff)
david jencks
On Sunday, February 15, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
> designed with the idea that we would have a single console of each
> type (e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff
> is not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type>
> doesn't really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better,
> unfortunately that name implies it is a debug tool for web
> applications, which it definitely is not. This is why I think we need
> a new naming convention.
>
> Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules into a
> new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
> becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to use a
> two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
> geronimo/applications/console/web/).
>
> What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming
> convention for applications.
>
> -dain
>
> On Feb 14, 2004, at 8:43 PM, n. alex rupp wrote:
>
>> Maybe call it "console-debug"?
>>
>> That would logically follow all of the other efforts in this vein.
>>
>> Looking forward to trying it out. ; )
>> --
>> N. Alex Rupp
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@4quarters.com>
>> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:19 AM
>> Subject: velocity-based debug console
>>
>>
>>> Dain wanted to convert the existing console-web webapp from JSP to
>>> Velocity. I took that on and in the tiny bits of time I've had
>>> available over the last 2 days, the basic thing is working.
>>>
>>> Like N. Alex's console-web, it shows a list of all mbeans, and you
>>> can
>>> click to get attributes and such for the mbean. The difference is
>>> that
>>> it's velocity based, very simple, and artistically challenged. I
>>> didn't want to spend time on art before we thought more on how things
>>> should be structured, and because I'm pretty bad at it.
>>>
>>> I have a few ideas on what to change, but I wanted to get it in so
>>> others could play and comment. Also, I know that this isn't meant to
>>> be the console, but rather a 'debug tool', and want input on what to
>>> do
>>> with it.
>>>
>>> So, should I check in as a new module? 'debug-tools' maybe? For
>>> now,
>>> it will parallel console-web in structure, but other debug tools can
>>> be
>>> added over time. Let me know...
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
>>> geir@4quarters.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@coredevelopers.net>.
I think we need a new naming convention. The console-<type> was
designed with the idea that we would have a single console of each type
(e.g., console-web, console-gui, console-cli). Now the new stuff is
not a management console, just a debug tool, so console-<type> doesn't
really fit. Instead debug-web, would fit better, unfortunately that
name implies it is a debug tool for web applications, which it
definitely is not. This is why I think we need a new naming
convention.
Also Jeremy suggested the other day that we put these modules into a
new applications "modules-tree" (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-web
becomes geronimo/applications/console-web/). Another idea is to use a
two level deep tree (e.g. geronimo/modules/console-debug becomes
geronimo/applications/console/web/).
What ever we decide, I think we need to readdress the naming convention
for applications.
-dain
On Feb 14, 2004, at 8:43 PM, n. alex rupp wrote:
> Maybe call it "console-debug"?
>
> That would logically follow all of the other efforts in this vein.
>
> Looking forward to trying it out. ; )
> --
> N. Alex Rupp
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@4quarters.com>
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:19 AM
> Subject: velocity-based debug console
>
>
>> Dain wanted to convert the existing console-web webapp from JSP to
>> Velocity. I took that on and in the tiny bits of time I've had
>> available over the last 2 days, the basic thing is working.
>>
>> Like N. Alex's console-web, it shows a list of all mbeans, and you can
>> click to get attributes and such for the mbean. The difference is
>> that
>> it's velocity based, very simple, and artistically challenged. I
>> didn't want to spend time on art before we thought more on how things
>> should be structured, and because I'm pretty bad at it.
>>
>> I have a few ideas on what to change, but I wanted to get it in so
>> others could play and comment. Also, I know that this isn't meant to
>> be the console, but rather a 'debug tool', and want input on what to
>> do
>> with it.
>>
>> So, should I check in as a new module? 'debug-tools' maybe? For now,
>> it will parallel console-web in structure, but other debug tools can
>> be
>> added over time. Let me know...
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
>> geir@4quarters.com
>>
>>
>>
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by "n. alex rupp" <ru...@umn.edu>.
Maybe call it "console-debug"?
That would logically follow all of the other efforts in this vein.
Looking forward to trying it out. ; )
--
N. Alex Rupp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@4quarters.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:19 AM
Subject: velocity-based debug console
> Dain wanted to convert the existing console-web webapp from JSP to
> Velocity. I took that on and in the tiny bits of time I've had
> available over the last 2 days, the basic thing is working.
>
> Like N. Alex's console-web, it shows a list of all mbeans, and you can
> click to get attributes and such for the mbean. The difference is that
> it's velocity based, very simple, and artistically challenged. I
> didn't want to spend time on art before we thought more on how things
> should be structured, and because I'm pretty bad at it.
>
> I have a few ideas on what to change, but I wanted to get it in so
> others could play and comment. Also, I know that this isn't meant to
> be the console, but rather a 'debug tool', and want input on what to do
> with it.
>
> So, should I check in as a new module? 'debug-tools' maybe? For now,
> it will parallel console-web in structure, but other debug tools can be
> added over time. Let me know...
>
> geir
>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
> geir@4quarters.com
>
>
>
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@4quarters.com>.
On Feb 14, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> So, should I check in as a new module? 'debug-tools' maybe? For
>> now, it will parallel console-web in structure, but other debug tools
>> can be added over time. Let me know...
>
> I was wondering if we should distinguish between modules (bits of the
> server) and applications (things that run on it), with console-web and
> this being applications rather than modules.
>
> Thoughts?
Makes sense. I have no real feelings either way.
I'm assuming that we'll want to add the ability to do things like
modify attributes and invoke operations, but want to wait for comment
on what's there first...
geir
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
And tools, at least insofar as we have command-line or application
tools (such as a deployer or command-line admin tools) that are running
neither in the server nor on it, but still communicate with it. though
there's no reason these couldn't be bundled with the web apps.
Aaron
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> I was wondering if we should distinguish between modules (bits of the
> server) and applications (things that run on it), with console-web and
> this being applications rather than modules.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
Re: velocity-based debug console
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> So, should I check in as a new module? 'debug-tools' maybe? For now,
> it will parallel console-web in structure, but other debug tools can be
> added over time. Let me know...
>
I was wondering if we should distinguish between modules (bits of the
server) and applications (things that run on it), with console-web and
this being applications rather than modules.
Thoughts?
--
Jeremy