You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Faisal Akeel <fa...@gmail.com> on 2005/12/19 15:01:41 UTC
Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
If you look at the top reason that FireFox more preferred over Mozilla
suite, this is because its small size and limited focus feature.
So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple web container (jetty) and
small foot print database (derby) only, instead of big J2EE application and
if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo example on the wiki web
site.
Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org>.
Faisal,
Once the installer is available(soon as the code for phase 1 is complete) this
will be fairly simple to do. Currently, the installer actually places all
the components of Geronimo in the config repository and customizes config.xml
to only load the services requested in the install.
The install selections will be easy to repeat since the installer allows for
saving the selections in an XML file which can be fed to the installer to
repeat the same installation on another machine(a nice feature of IzPack).
The plan for the future of the installer is to also have it only install the
selected components into the repository. I was just about to start a little
discussion on the subject when I saw this note. Anyway, I think this should
be optional since it's currently good for experimentation that the installer
configures only a subset of the functionality, but actually installs all.
This way, folks who want to experiment with features by turning them on and
off in config.xml are free to do so.
regards,
erik
p.s. To build a Mini-G at build time, look at the assemblies/j2ee-jetty(or
tomcat)-server/project.xml. It should be possible to create a custom
assemblies/j2ee-myconfig/project.xml which only includes the desired
components. Note that the associated config.xml should be modified.
I don't necessarily recommend this approach, but that's what's going on....
On Monday 19 December 2005 09:01, Faisal Akeel wrote:
> If you look at the top reason that FireFox more preferred over Mozilla
> suite, this is because its small size and limited focus feature.
> So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple web container (jetty)
> and small foot print database (derby) only, instead of big J2EE application
> and if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo example on the wiki
> web site.
> Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
--
Regards,
Erik
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org>.
Agreed. I was a just a little predisposed to an answer given the particular
project I'm undertaking.
On Monday 19 December 2005 20:41, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> In truth, I think we can go further in allowing for a "mini-Geronimo".
> For example, right now IIRC the core J2EE configuration contains
> OpenEJB, and we could probably break out OpenEJB into a separate
> configuration to let you easily configure a server without it. I
> think I've been convinced that more/smaller configurations is the way
> to go, though we haven't figured out for sure how granular they should
> get.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 12/19/05, Jan Bartel <ja...@mortbay.com> wrote:
> > Faisal,
> >
> > You can use either standalone Tomcat or Jetty containers to give
> > you web container plus a couple of j2ee frills like jndi, resource
> > mapping etc etc.
> >
> > However, if you want to keep within the geronimo idiom, then Erik's
> > answer re cut-down installation is the way to go.
> >
> > regards
> > Jan
> >
> > Wade Chandler wrote:
> > > --- Faisal Akeel <fa...@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> > >>If you look at the top reason that FireFox more
> > >>preferred over Mozilla
> > >>suite, this is because its small size and limited
> > >>focus feature.
> > >>So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple
> > >>web container (jetty) and
> > >>small foot print database (derby) only, instead of
> > >>big J2EE application and
> > >>if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo
> > >>example on the wiki web
> > >>site.
> > >>Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
> > >
> > > That's what Tomcat is for.
> > >
> > > Wade
--
Regards,
Erik
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
I have not used java 5.0. But I think it should
work after few initial hiccups. With the new assembly
process, you would have to go through the plans and
comment out the GBeans not needed. We need to mark the
sections to comment out clearly. We also need to make
sure that the console can handle the missing
components.
As described by David Jencks here is the latest (DJ
please confirm?) build process. Give it a try, and let
us know.
Thanks
Anita
On 11/21/05, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.....................
......................
> 1. build geronimo + openejb using maven -o, maven -o
m:rebuild, or some
> such. You can stop the build when you get to the
assembly module, and
> certainly when you get to itests.
>
> 2. build the plugins explicitly:
> cd plugins
> maven -o multiproject:install
> cd ..
>
> 3. build the configs:
> cd configs
> maven -o multiproject:install
> cd ..
>
> This step uses the packaging plugin to build all the
configurations we
> need for both jetty and tomcat servers, and installs
them in your local
> maven repo as .car files.
>
> 4. build the servers:
> cd assemblies
> cd j2ee-jetty-server
> maven -o clean default
>
> cd ../j2ee-tomcat-server
> maven -o clean default
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Warning:
> The configIds of these configurations are
incompatible with the
> configIds used by the previous assembly. If you
deploy anything on
> these servers and you specify a parentId or an
import you will have to
> modify them.
--- Panagiotis Astithas <pa...@ebs.gr> wrote:
> anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> > I have used G without openEJB extensively in
> the
> > past. It works well.
>
> Would such an installation work on java 5.0? IIRC,
> the showstopper for
> java 5.0 were the Sun CORBA requirements of OpenEJB.
> This would be
> awsome for us, since we have java5-specific code in
> our apps, but are
> not using EJB.
>
> Cheers,
> Panagiotis
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Panagiotis Astithas <pa...@ebs.gr>.
anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> I have used G without openEJB extensively in the
> past. It works well.
Would such an installation work on java 5.0? IIRC, the showstopper for
java 5.0 were the Sun CORBA requirements of OpenEJB. This would be
awsome for us, since we have java5-specific code in our apps, but are
not using EJB.
Cheers,
Panagiotis
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
I have used G without openEJB extensively in the
past. It works well.
Thanks
Anita
--- Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> In truth, I think we can go further in allowing for
> a "mini-Geronimo".
> For example, right now IIRC the core J2EE
> configuration contains
> OpenEJB, and we could probably break out OpenEJB
> into a separate
> configuration to let you easily configure a server
> without it. I
> think I've been convinced that more/smaller
> configurations is the way
> to go, though we haven't figured out for sure how
> granular they should
> get.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 12/19/05, Jan Bartel <ja...@mortbay.com> wrote:
> > Faisal,
> >
> > You can use either standalone Tomcat or Jetty
> containers to give
> > you web container plus a couple of j2ee frills
> like jndi, resource
> > mapping etc etc.
> >
> > However, if you want to keep within the geronimo
> idiom, then Erik's
> > answer re cut-down installation is the way to go.
> >
> > regards
> > Jan
> >
> > Wade Chandler wrote:
> > > --- Faisal Akeel
>
<fa...@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>If you look at the top reason that FireFox more
> > >>preferred over Mozilla
> > >>suite, this is because its small size and
> limited
> > >>focus feature.
> > >>So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a
> simple
> > >>web container (jetty) and
> > >>small foot print database (derby) only, instead
> of
> > >>big J2EE application and
> > >>if it possible can anyone provide guide or a
> demo
> > >>example on the wiki web
> > >>site.
> > >>Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > That's what Tomcat is for.
> > >
> > > Wade
> > >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Daisuke Kameda <ka...@cc.rim.or.jp>.
Thank you for your reply, and I'm sorry late to reply.
Bharath Duggirala wrote:
> I guess such an assembly/configuration could be phrased as Apache Geronimo
> *Personal Edition*...just another indication that s/w is getting more and
> more personalised and the user can take a call on the bits and pieces of the
> s/w he wants to live with.
I have read a article about Geronimo Architecture.
URL:http://www.jaxmag.com/itr/online_artikel/psecom,id,690,nodeid,147.html
So, I thought the new package which involve Geronimo's subset and other
framework (e.g. Spring or Seasar(URL:http://www.seasar.org/en/) ) will
be released.
If we will be able to make Personal Edition, it is also good news.
--
Daisuke Kameda mailto:kaminmat@cc.rim.or.jp
Japan KDE Users' Group: President
mailto:daisuke@kde.gr.jp http://www.kde.gr.jp/~daisuke/
immodule for Qt Project: Project Leader
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software_2fimmodule_2dqt
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Bharath Duggirala <db...@gmail.com>.
I guess such an assembly/configuration could be phrased as Apache Geronimo
*Personal Edition*...just another indication that s/w is getting more and
more personalised and the user can take a call on the bits and pieces of the
s/w he wants to live with.
/Bharath
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Daisuke Kameda <ka...@cc.rim.or.jp>.
Hello All,
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> In truth, I think we can go further in allowing for a "mini-Geronimo".
> For example, right now IIRC the core J2EE configuration contains
> OpenEJB, and we could probably break out OpenEJB into a separate
> configuration to let you easily configure a server without it. I
> think I've been convinced that more/smaller configurations is the way
> to go, though we haven't figured out for sure how granular they should
> get.
I've been conducting technical investigation of Geronimo by the
direction from a superior official, and I am referring to the document
which you are writing very much. Thank you for a great work.
btw, what mentioned above are very interesting for me. I read many
interviews and technical articles, and I found that the same thing is
described at the some of them.
Are there any concrete plans?
Regards,
--
Daisuke Kameda mailto:kaminmat@cc.rim.or.jp
Japan KDE Users' Group: President
mailto:daisuke@kde.gr.jp http://www.kde.gr.jp/~daisuke/
immodule for Qt Project: Project Leader
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software_2fimmodule_2dqt
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Dec 20, 2005, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> We couldn't call that J2EE then...
I'm not sure how much this could be an issue. Even with the current
set of configurations, with the planned installer changes, we will be
able to construct a server with no web server, which is also not J2EE
compliant. Anyone can do this today with 5 minutes to set up an
alternative assemblies server. I certainly want it to be easy to set
up a server with no deployment capabilities.
Personally my view is that if we can construct a server using the
same pieces as are used in a full J2EE server we will not be stepping
on anyones toes.
david jencks
>
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 8:41 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> In truth, I think we can go further in allowing for a "mini-
>> Geronimo".
>> For example, right now IIRC the core J2EE configuration contains
>> OpenEJB, and we could probably break out OpenEJB into a separate
>> configuration to let you easily configure a server without it. I
>> think I've been convinced that more/smaller configurations is the way
>> to go, though we haven't figured out for sure how granular they
>> should
>> get.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>> On 12/19/05, Jan Bartel <ja...@mortbay.com> wrote:
>>> Faisal,
>>>
>>> You can use either standalone Tomcat or Jetty containers to give
>>> you web container plus a couple of j2ee frills like jndi, resource
>>> mapping etc etc.
>>>
>>> However, if you want to keep within the geronimo idiom, then Erik's
>>> answer re cut-down installation is the way to go.
>>>
>>> regards
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> Wade Chandler wrote:
>>>> --- Faisal Akeel <faisal.akeel-
>>>> Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you look at the top reason that FireFox more
>>>>> preferred over Mozilla
>>>>> suite, this is because its small size and limited
>>>>> focus feature.
>>>>> So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple
>>>>> web container (jetty) and
>>>>> small foot print database (derby) only, instead of
>>>>> big J2EE application and
>>>>> if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo
>>>>> example on the wiki web
>>>>> site.
>>>>> Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's what Tomcat is for.
>>>>
>>>> Wade
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
We couldn't call that J2EE then...
On Dec 19, 2005, at 8:41 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> In truth, I think we can go further in allowing for a "mini-Geronimo".
> For example, right now IIRC the core J2EE configuration contains
> OpenEJB, and we could probably break out OpenEJB into a separate
> configuration to let you easily configure a server without it. I
> think I've been convinced that more/smaller configurations is the way
> to go, though we haven't figured out for sure how granular they should
> get.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 12/19/05, Jan Bartel <ja...@mortbay.com> wrote:
>> Faisal,
>>
>> You can use either standalone Tomcat or Jetty containers to give
>> you web container plus a couple of j2ee frills like jndi, resource
>> mapping etc etc.
>>
>> However, if you want to keep within the geronimo idiom, then Erik's
>> answer re cut-down installation is the way to go.
>>
>> regards
>> Jan
>>
>> Wade Chandler wrote:
>>> --- Faisal Akeel <faisal.akeel-
>>> Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you look at the top reason that FireFox more
>>>> preferred over Mozilla
>>>> suite, this is because its small size and limited
>>>> focus feature.
>>>> So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple
>>>> web container (jetty) and
>>>> small foot print database (derby) only, instead of
>>>> big J2EE application and
>>>> if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo
>>>> example on the wiki web
>>>> site.
>>>> Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what Tomcat is for.
>>>
>>> Wade
>>>
>>
>>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
In truth, I think we can go further in allowing for a "mini-Geronimo".
For example, right now IIRC the core J2EE configuration contains
OpenEJB, and we could probably break out OpenEJB into a separate
configuration to let you easily configure a server without it. I
think I've been convinced that more/smaller configurations is the way
to go, though we haven't figured out for sure how granular they should
get.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 12/19/05, Jan Bartel <ja...@mortbay.com> wrote:
> Faisal,
>
> You can use either standalone Tomcat or Jetty containers to give
> you web container plus a couple of j2ee frills like jndi, resource
> mapping etc etc.
>
> However, if you want to keep within the geronimo idiom, then Erik's
> answer re cut-down installation is the way to go.
>
> regards
> Jan
>
> Wade Chandler wrote:
> > --- Faisal Akeel <fa...@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you look at the top reason that FireFox more
> >>preferred over Mozilla
> >>suite, this is because its small size and limited
> >>focus feature.
> >>So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple
> >>web container (jetty) and
> >>small foot print database (derby) only, instead of
> >>big J2EE application and
> >>if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo
> >>example on the wiki web
> >>site.
> >>Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's what Tomcat is for.
> >
> > Wade
> >
>
>
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Jan Bartel <ja...@mortbay.com>.
Faisal,
You can use either standalone Tomcat or Jetty containers to give
you web container plus a couple of j2ee frills like jndi, resource
mapping etc etc.
However, if you want to keep within the geronimo idiom, then Erik's
answer re cut-down installation is the way to go.
regards
Jan
Wade Chandler wrote:
> --- Faisal Akeel <fa...@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
>>If you look at the top reason that FireFox more
>>preferred over Mozilla
>>suite, this is because its small size and limited
>>focus feature.
>>So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple
>>web container (jetty) and
>>small foot print database (derby) only, instead of
>>big J2EE application and
>>if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo
>>example on the wiki web
>>site.
>>Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
>>
>
>
> That's what Tomcat is for.
>
> Wade
>
Re: Apache mini Geronimo (mini-G)
Posted by Wade Chandler <hw...@yahoo.com>.
--- Faisal Akeel <fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you look at the top reason that FireFox more
> preferred over Mozilla
> suite, this is because its small size and limited
> focus feature.
> So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple
> web container (jetty) and
> small foot print database (derby) only, instead of
> big J2EE application and
> if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo
> example on the wiki web
> site.
> Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car.
>
That's what Tomcat is for.
Wade