You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com> on 2007/10/29 16:32:27 UTC
J2G future positioning
Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the
future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly
scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name).
However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for
migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it
might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name.
Any thoughts ??
--
Thanks,
Tim McConnell
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by "Erik B. Craig" <gi...@gmail.com>.
Looking back, I explained what I was intending very poorly in my
previous reply, but Paul has worded it much better. I am in agreement
with this approach 100%.
+1
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> +1
>
> This is making a -lot- of sense.
>
> There is no reason that we need to build a huge monolithic Eclipse
> plugin to allow people to migrate applications to our modular server
> platform.
>
> I originally didn't even think about breaking it up into a group of
> specific plugins using a common core - even though that is what
> Geronimo is all about.
>
> Jay
>
> Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>> I'm with Paul on this. I envision a Migrate2Geronimo Toolkit that will
>> consist of a suite of individual plugins (for Eclipse and G), each
>> handling the migration from a specific appserver to G. Of course, all
>> these may depend on a base or common plugin. But the user will only
>> deal with the plugin relevant to him. He will not have to install one
>> big huge uber migrator if he only has jboss apps.
>>
>> Next week, we'll look forward to Jason adding a BEA2G plugin to this
>> M2G Toolkit ;-)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Prasad.
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super
>>> migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of
>>> source formats. I think that instead we should look into factoring
>>> out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators
>>> into a separate Eclipse plugin. Then J2G could remain as J2G but
>>> could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new
>>> migrators we create.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
>>>> plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial
>>>> iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific
>>>> migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if
>>>> we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for
>>>> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
>>>> would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic
>>>> and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ??
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tim McConnell
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@joyfulnoisewebdesign.com>.
+1
This is making a -lot- of sense.
There is no reason that we need to build a huge monolithic Eclipse
plugin to allow people to migrate applications to our modular server
platform.
I originally didn't even think about breaking it up into a group of
specific plugins using a common core - even though that is what Geronimo
is all about.
Jay
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> I'm with Paul on this. I envision a Migrate2Geronimo Toolkit that will
> consist of a suite of individual plugins (for Eclipse and G), each
> handling the migration from a specific appserver to G. Of course, all
> these may depend on a base or common plugin. But the user will only
> deal with the plugin relevant to him. He will not have to install one
> big huge uber migrator if he only has jboss apps.
>
> Next week, we'll look forward to Jason adding a BEA2G plugin to this
> M2G Toolkit ;-)
>
> Cheers
> Prasad.
>
>
> On 10/30/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super
>> migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of
>> source formats. I think that instead we should look into factoring
>> out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators
>> into a separate Eclipse plugin. Then J2G could remain as J2G but
>> could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new
>> migrators we create.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
>>> plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial
>>> iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific
>>> migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if
>>> we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for
>>> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
>>> would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic
>>> and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ??
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim McConnell
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
I'm with Paul on this. I envision a Migrate2Geronimo Toolkit that will
consist of a suite of individual plugins (for Eclipse and G), each
handling the migration from a specific appserver to G. Of course, all
these may depend on a base or common plugin. But the user will only
deal with the plugin relevant to him. He will not have to install one
big huge uber migrator if he only has jboss apps.
Next week, we'll look forward to Jason adding a BEA2G plugin to this
M2G Toolkit ;-)
Cheers
Prasad.
On 10/30/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super
> migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of
> source formats. I think that instead we should look into factoring
> out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators
> into a separate Eclipse plugin. Then J2G could remain as J2G but
> could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new
> migrators we create.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>
> > Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
> > plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial
> > iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific
> > migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if
> > we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for
> > migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
> > would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic
> > and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ??
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Tim McConnell
>
>
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super
migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of
source formats. I think that instead we should look into factoring
out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators
into a separate Eclipse plugin. Then J2G could remain as J2G but
could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new
migrators we create.
Best wishes,
Paul
On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote:
> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
> plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial
> iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific
> migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if
> we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for
> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
> would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic
> and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ??
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Tim McConnell
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
I think it would be great if it can handle more than jboss to geronimo.
We can have a pluggable migration framework that does most of the
migration work that is needed from server A to geronimo, and allow a
user to build additional plugins to plugin their server specific stuff
in. For instance, a jboss plugin to have all the unique stuff that is
needed for jboss to geronimo migration.
Lin
Jason Warner wrote:
> I worry that giving it a more generic name before the tool can actually
> be applied in a
> generic way might confuse some users. Although, since it's being moved
> at the moment,
> it is the most convenient time to make such a change. I think adding
> some extra emphasis
> in the documentation that it's really only meant to be used on JBoss
> apps until further functionality
> is added might be sufficient to stem user confusion. What about a
> simple "Geronimo Migration Tool"
> name?
>
> ~Jason Warner
>
> On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* <tim.mcconne@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
> plugin in the
> future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is
> narrowly
> scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in
> the name).
> However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more
> generic tool for
> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
> would), it
> might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or
> appropriate name.
> Any thoughts ??
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Tim McConnell
>
>
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by Jason Warner <ja...@gmail.com>.
I worry that giving it a more generic name before the tool can actually be
applied in a
generic way might confuse some users. Although, since it's being moved at
the moment,
it is the most convenient time to make such a change. I think adding some
extra emphasis
in the documentation that it's really only meant to be used on JBoss apps
until further functionality
is added might be sufficient to stem user confusion. What about a simple
"Geronimo Migration Tool"
name?
~Jason Warner
On 10/29/07, Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin
> in the
> future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is
> narrowly
> scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the
> name).
> However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic
> tool for
> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would),
> it
> might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate
> name.
> Any thoughts ??
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Tim McConnell
>
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by "Erik B. Craig" <gi...@gmail.com>.
I'm going more along with Jason's original reply here...
I like the idea of calling it "Geronimo Migration Toolkit", keeping the
name slightly ambiguous with the toolkit at the end would allow for us
to potentially 'grow into' it in the future.
-Erik
Tim McConnell wrote:
> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
> plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration
> that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only
> (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to
> eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple
> applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a
> good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name.
> Any thoughts ??
>
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by Jason Warner <ja...@gmail.com>.
I was trying to come up with something like that myself. I like the idea of
keeping the 2. Somehow, "Migrate 2 Geronimo" was too obscure for me to
grasp. Thanks for ending my mental struggle, Joe.
~Jason Warner
On 10/29/07, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* <tim.mcconne@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
> > plugin in the
> > future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is
> > narrowly
> > scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in
> > the name).
> > However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more
> > generic tool for
> > migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
> > would), it
> > might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or
> > appropriate name.
> > Any thoughts ??
> >
> >
> > I think it's a good idea to call it a "migration tool". We definitely
> > should not be using the name "JBoss". j2g would be ok (though i'd be in
> > favor of a generic name).
>
> I agree. What's not to like about a generic migration tool to get
> people on Geronimo even if the first version only works when you migrate
> from JBoss? :-)
>
> Personally, I'd still like to see the "2" in the name. How about M2G
> (Migrate to Geronimo)? The problem with something like "Geronimo
> Migration tool" or even just "migration tool" is that the direction
> isn't clear and we definitely want it to be known that we're helping you
> migrate to Geronimo.
>
> Joe
>
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>
> On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* <tim.mcconne@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
> plugin in the
> future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is
> narrowly
> scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in
> the name).
> However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more
> generic tool for
> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
> would), it
> might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or
> appropriate name.
> Any thoughts ??
>
>
> I think it's a good idea to call it a "migration tool". We definitely
> should not be using the name "JBoss". j2g would be ok (though i'd be in
> favor of a generic name).
I agree. What's not to like about a generic migration tool to get
people on Geronimo even if the first version only works when you migrate
from JBoss? :-)
Personally, I'd still like to see the "2" in the name. How about M2G
(Migrate to Geronimo)? The problem with something like "Geronimo
Migration tool" or even just "migration tool" is that the direction
isn't clear and we definitely want it to be known that we're helping you
migrate to Geronimo.
Joe
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
I like a generic "Migrator" package name under devtools, so it leaves
open the possibility for other app servers to Geronimo and to
upgrade/migrate from previous Geronimo releases if we make major changes.
-Donald
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>
> On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* <tim.mcconne@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G
> plugin in the
> future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is
> narrowly
> scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in
> the name).
> However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more
> generic tool for
> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we
> would), it
> might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or
> appropriate name.
> Any thoughts ??
>
>
> I think it's a good idea to call it a "migration tool". We definitely
> should not be using the name "JBoss". j2g would be ok (though i'd be in
> favor of a generic name).
>
> --kevan
Re: J2G future positioning
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On 10/29/07, Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin
> in the
> future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is
> narrowly
> scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the
> name).
> However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic
> tool for
> migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would),
> it
> might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate
> name.
> Any thoughts ??
>
I think it's a good idea to call it a "migration tool". We definitely should
not be using the name "JBoss". j2g would be ok (though i'd be in favor of a
generic name).
--kevan