You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Aaron Mulder (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org> on 2005/07/15 21:32:23 UTC
[jira] Created: (GERONIMO-763) M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------
Key: GERONIMO-763
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: Tomcat
Versions: 1.0-M3
Reporter: Aaron Mulder
Assigned to: Jeff Genender
Priority: Blocker
The feeling on the mailing list was that the M4 release should offer separate Tomcat and Jetty builds. If that is to be done, I think we essentially want two versions of the J2EE server plan that are otherwise identical, or one with two different possible imports for the web container, or whatever. With the current plans it appears that your options are Jetty or Jetty+Tomcat, not Tomcat alone (at least, not without manual editing). In the end, I think we want the org/apache/geronimo/Server configuration to have either Tomcat or Jetty but not both (and no separate org/apache/geronimo/Tomcat configuration).
Note that it should be quite easy to build two separate installer packages based on this. I'm not sure it will be as easy to have two separate assembly modules; perhaps the server selected for the assembly module should be controlled by a property in assembly/project.properties
It would probably be best for this ultimately to migrate to HEAD, but it's urgent that we have it in the M4 branch (based on the apparent concensus)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Closed: (GERONIMO-763) M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
Posted by "Alan Cabrera (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Alan Cabrera closed GERONIMO-763:
---------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
> M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GERONIMO-763
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763
> Project: Geronimo
> Type: Bug
> Components: Tomcat
> Versions: 1.0-M3
> Reporter: Aaron Mulder
> Assignee: Alan Cabrera
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.0-M5
>
> The feeling on the mailing list was that the M4 release should offer separate Tomcat and Jetty builds. If that is to be done, I think we essentially want two versions of the J2EE server plan that are otherwise identical, or one with two different possible imports for the web container, or whatever. With the current plans it appears that your options are Jetty or Jetty+Tomcat, not Tomcat alone (at least, not without manual editing). After installation, I think we want the org/apache/geronimo/Server configuration to have either Tomcat or Jetty but not both (and no separate org/apache/geronimo/Tomcat configuration).
> Note that it should be quite easy to build two separate installer packages based on this, and it may be possible to build one installer that includes one app server by default but allows you to override it with the other. I'm not sure it will be as easy to have two separate assembly output directories; perhaps the server selected for the assembly module should be controlled by a property in assembly/project.properties
> It would probably be best for this ultimately to migrate to HEAD, but it's urgent that we have it in the M4 branch (based on the apparent concensus)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-763) M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
Posted by "Aaron Mulder (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Aaron Mulder updated GERONIMO-763:
----------------------------------
Description:
The feeling on the mailing list was that the M4 release should offer separate Tomcat and Jetty builds. If that is to be done, I think we essentially want two versions of the J2EE server plan that are otherwise identical, or one with two different possible imports for the web container, or whatever. With the current plans it appears that your options are Jetty or Jetty+Tomcat, not Tomcat alone (at least, not without manual editing). After installation, I think we want the org/apache/geronimo/Server configuration to have either Tomcat or Jetty but not both (and no separate org/apache/geronimo/Tomcat configuration).
Note that it should be quite easy to build two separate installer packages based on this, and it may be possible to build one installer that includes one app server by default but allows you to override it with the other. I'm not sure it will be as easy to have two separate assembly output directories; perhaps the server selected for the assembly module should be controlled by a property in assembly/project.properties
It would probably be best for this ultimately to migrate to HEAD, but it's urgent that we have it in the M4 branch (based on the apparent concensus)
was:
The feeling on the mailing list was that the M4 release should offer separate Tomcat and Jetty builds. If that is to be done, I think we essentially want two versions of the J2EE server plan that are otherwise identical, or one with two different possible imports for the web container, or whatever. With the current plans it appears that your options are Jetty or Jetty+Tomcat, not Tomcat alone (at least, not without manual editing). In the end, I think we want the org/apache/geronimo/Server configuration to have either Tomcat or Jetty but not both (and no separate org/apache/geronimo/Tomcat configuration).
Note that it should be quite easy to build two separate installer packages based on this. I'm not sure it will be as easy to have two separate assembly modules; perhaps the server selected for the assembly module should be controlled by a property in assembly/project.properties
It would probably be best for this ultimately to migrate to HEAD, but it's urgent that we have it in the M4 branch (based on the apparent concensus)
> M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GERONIMO-763
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763
> Project: Geronimo
> Type: Bug
> Components: Tomcat
> Versions: 1.0-M3
> Reporter: Aaron Mulder
> Assignee: Jeff Genender
> Priority: Blocker
>
> The feeling on the mailing list was that the M4 release should offer separate Tomcat and Jetty builds. If that is to be done, I think we essentially want two versions of the J2EE server plan that are otherwise identical, or one with two different possible imports for the web container, or whatever. With the current plans it appears that your options are Jetty or Jetty+Tomcat, not Tomcat alone (at least, not without manual editing). After installation, I think we want the org/apache/geronimo/Server configuration to have either Tomcat or Jetty but not both (and no separate org/apache/geronimo/Tomcat configuration).
> Note that it should be quite easy to build two separate installer packages based on this, and it may be possible to build one installer that includes one app server by default but allows you to override it with the other. I'm not sure it will be as easy to have two separate assembly output directories; perhaps the server selected for the assembly module should be controlled by a property in assembly/project.properties
> It would probably be best for this ultimately to migrate to HEAD, but it's urgent that we have it in the M4 branch (based on the apparent concensus)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Closed: (GERONIMO-763) M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
Posted by "Jeff Genender (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Jeff Genender closed GERONIMO-763:
----------------------------------
Fix Version: 1.0-M4
Resolution: Fixed
Done. etc/propject.properties now has a property called geronimo.web.container. It may be set jetty or tomcat. Just rebuild assembly, and the proper container will be configured for the build.
> M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GERONIMO-763
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763
> Project: Geronimo
> Type: Bug
> Components: Tomcat
> Versions: 1.0-M3
> Reporter: Aaron Mulder
> Assignee: Jeff Genender
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.0-M4
>
> The feeling on the mailing list was that the M4 release should offer separate Tomcat and Jetty builds. If that is to be done, I think we essentially want two versions of the J2EE server plan that are otherwise identical, or one with two different possible imports for the web container, or whatever. With the current plans it appears that your options are Jetty or Jetty+Tomcat, not Tomcat alone (at least, not without manual editing). After installation, I think we want the org/apache/geronimo/Server configuration to have either Tomcat or Jetty but not both (and no separate org/apache/geronimo/Tomcat configuration).
> Note that it should be quite easy to build two separate installer packages based on this, and it may be possible to build one installer that includes one app server by default but allows you to override it with the other. I'm not sure it will be as easy to have two separate assembly output directories; perhaps the server selected for the assembly module should be controlled by a property in assembly/project.properties
> It would probably be best for this ultimately to migrate to HEAD, but it's urgent that we have it in the M4 branch (based on the apparent concensus)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Reopened: (GERONIMO-763) M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
Posted by "Alan Cabrera (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Alan Cabrera reopened GERONIMO-763:
-----------------------------------
Assign To: Alan Cabrera (was: Jeff Genender)
> M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GERONIMO-763
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763
> Project: Geronimo
> Type: Bug
> Components: Tomcat
> Versions: 1.0-M3
> Reporter: Aaron Mulder
> Assignee: Alan Cabrera
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.0-M5
>
> The feeling on the mailing list was that the M4 release should offer separate Tomcat and Jetty builds. If that is to be done, I think we essentially want two versions of the J2EE server plan that are otherwise identical, or one with two different possible imports for the web container, or whatever. With the current plans it appears that your options are Jetty or Jetty+Tomcat, not Tomcat alone (at least, not without manual editing). After installation, I think we want the org/apache/geronimo/Server configuration to have either Tomcat or Jetty but not both (and no separate org/apache/geronimo/Tomcat configuration).
> Note that it should be quite easy to build two separate installer packages based on this, and it may be possible to build one installer that includes one app server by default but allows you to override it with the other. I'm not sure it will be as easy to have two separate assembly output directories; perhaps the server selected for the assembly module should be controlled by a property in assembly/project.properties
> It would probably be best for this ultimately to migrate to HEAD, but it's urgent that we have it in the M4 branch (based on the apparent concensus)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-763) M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
Posted by "Alan Cabrera (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Alan Cabrera updated GERONIMO-763:
----------------------------------
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
(was: 1.0-M4)
> M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GERONIMO-763
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763
> Project: Geronimo
> Type: Bug
> Components: Tomcat
> Versions: 1.0-M3
> Reporter: Aaron Mulder
> Assignee: Alan Cabrera
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.0-M5
>
> The feeling on the mailing list was that the M4 release should offer separate Tomcat and Jetty builds. If that is to be done, I think we essentially want two versions of the J2EE server plan that are otherwise identical, or one with two different possible imports for the web container, or whatever. With the current plans it appears that your options are Jetty or Jetty+Tomcat, not Tomcat alone (at least, not without manual editing). After installation, I think we want the org/apache/geronimo/Server configuration to have either Tomcat or Jetty but not both (and no separate org/apache/geronimo/Tomcat configuration).
> Note that it should be quite easy to build two separate installer packages based on this, and it may be possible to build one installer that includes one app server by default but allows you to override it with the other. I'm not sure it will be as easy to have two separate assembly output directories; perhaps the server selected for the assembly module should be controlled by a property in assembly/project.properties
> It would probably be best for this ultimately to migrate to HEAD, but it's urgent that we have it in the M4 branch (based on the apparent concensus)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira