You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2005/11/04 20:05:27 UTC
Binary images for Geronimo 1.0?
With Geronimo 1.0 quickly approaching, I think we should talk about
how we would like to package the binaries for release. This has
downstream impact on tck testing, and since I'm working on the TCK
build right now, I'd like to know what we are going to need to test.
So to get the discussion going, this is what I think would be ideal
and what we need at the minimum:
Ideal:
geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
Only the resources for the web server they choose are installed.
geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a Tomcat only version of
Geronimo with no Jetty resources.
geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a Jetty only version of
Geronimo with no unnecessary Tomcat resources.
Minimum:
geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
Resources are installed for both, and the installer just sets the
chosen web server to boot by default.
geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Tomcat will start by default.
geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Jetty will start by default.
What do you think?
-dain
Re: Binary images for Geronimo 1.0?
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
Continuing from my previous mail with my thoughts on this subject, I was
made aware of atleast 5 apps that are specific to Tomcat and 5 apps to
Jetty. There may be more of these thrown in the mix. These apps show up in
the console list as well.
So there's more work involved in getting them to show/hide selectively
based on the container. Now that could be another deciding factor that'll
tilt the scale for going with 2 separate binaries.
Cheers
Prasad
On 11/4/05, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think a binary release needs to include documentation
> particular to that release. Is that something that can
> be done readily?
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBQ2vU7JrNPMCpn3XdAQK1pQQAqW9+XK04viIWYxtC4J0iocHtrn5dTMve
> reCnhBxkcUUaaUK47HQu2sg+6tdv5WA7WGWz7jVL49rN3/YZc6HCPenqmgWeHUFf
> CodXYUazEXSR6JQdP8EeRLBOfw0wqo2UwO/RZtfZFtCYb0zeGeZlOaTltb6TyLZ6
> 6nH0ovj/VoQ=
> =j+Jc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: Binary images for Geronimo 1.0?
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I think a binary release needs to include documentation
particular to that release. Is that something that can
be done readily?
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ2vU7JrNPMCpn3XdAQK1pQQAqW9+XK04viIWYxtC4J0iocHtrn5dTMve
reCnhBxkcUUaaUK47HQu2sg+6tdv5WA7WGWz7jVL49rN3/YZc6HCPenqmgWeHUFf
CodXYUazEXSR6JQdP8EeRLBOfw0wqo2UwO/RZtfZFtCYb0zeGeZlOaTltb6TyLZ6
6nH0ovj/VoQ=
=j+Jc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Binary images for Geronimo 1.0?
Posted by Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com>.
But if it is difficult to change between the two options it would be
even more difficult to choose the one to start with.
Heinz
On 11/6/05, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think that until we have the "ideal" solution we will just be
> confusing our users and causing them grief.
>
> While the "change on the fly" option is great for developers (esp.
> developers of Geronimo itself :-) ), it isn't so good for the typical
> user. Users who are using Geronimo to host their business applications
> won't understand why "jetty" appears in the list of configurations when
> I installed a "tomcat" only server.
>
> It also provides enough rope for some users to hang themselves ...
> changing from one server to the other only to discover that they web
> apps they had previously deployed are no longer functional.
>
> Joe
>
> Heinz Drews wrote:
> > I would see the "mininum" as the ideal solution and the other as a
> > less preferrable.
> > Assuming that somebody starts with using Jetty and then finding that
> > Tomcat would have been the bettter choice it would be easier just to
> > change the configuration than to perform a complete re-install.
> >
> > Just as a not counting opinion.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Heinz
> >
> > On 11/5/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>I agree completely (your ideal is also my ideal, and your minimum is
> >>my preferred "worst case" as well).
> >>
> >>WRT the documentation, there are really no noticable differences
> >>between Tomcat and Jetty until you get far beyond the level of
> >>documentation we include in a release, so I don't think this will be a
> >>big issue.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >> Aaron
> >>
> >>On 11/4/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>With Geronimo 1.0 quickly approaching, I think we should talk about
> >>>how we would like to package the binaries for release. This has
> >>>downstream impact on tck testing, and since I'm working on the TCK
> >>>build right now, I'd like to know what we are going to need to test.
> >>>So to get the discussion going, this is what I think would be ideal
> >>>and what we need at the minimum:
> >>>
> >>>Ideal:
> >>>geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
> >>>Only the resources for the web server they choose are installed.
> >>>geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a Tomcat only version of
> >>>Geronimo with no Jetty resources.
> >>>geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a Jetty only version of
> >>>Geronimo with no unnecessary Tomcat resources.
> >>>
> >>>Minimum:
> >>>geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
> >>>Resources are installed for both, and the installer just sets the
> >>>chosen web server to boot by default.
> >>>geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
> >>>both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Tomcat will start by default.
> >>>geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
> >>>both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Jetty will start by default.
> >>>
> >>>What do you think?
> >>>
> >>>-dain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Binary images for Geronimo 1.0?
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I think that until we have the "ideal" solution we will just be
confusing our users and causing them grief.
While the "change on the fly" option is great for developers (esp.
developers of Geronimo itself :-) ), it isn't so good for the typical
user. Users who are using Geronimo to host their business applications
won't understand why "jetty" appears in the list of configurations when
I installed a "tomcat" only server.
It also provides enough rope for some users to hang themselves ...
changing from one server to the other only to discover that they web
apps they had previously deployed are no longer functional.
Joe
Heinz Drews wrote:
> I would see the "mininum" as the ideal solution and the other as a
> less preferrable.
> Assuming that somebody starts with using Jetty and then finding that
> Tomcat would have been the bettter choice it would be easier just to
> change the configuration than to perform a complete re-install.
>
> Just as a not counting opinion.
>
> Best regards,
> Heinz
>
> On 11/5/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>I agree completely (your ideal is also my ideal, and your minimum is
>>my preferred "worst case" as well).
>>
>>WRT the documentation, there are really no noticable differences
>>between Tomcat and Jetty until you get far beyond the level of
>>documentation we include in a release, so I don't think this will be a
>>big issue.
>>
>>Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>>On 11/4/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>
>>>With Geronimo 1.0 quickly approaching, I think we should talk about
>>>how we would like to package the binaries for release. This has
>>>downstream impact on tck testing, and since I'm working on the TCK
>>>build right now, I'd like to know what we are going to need to test.
>>>So to get the discussion going, this is what I think would be ideal
>>>and what we need at the minimum:
>>>
>>>Ideal:
>>>geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
>>>Only the resources for the web server they choose are installed.
>>>geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a Tomcat only version of
>>>Geronimo with no Jetty resources.
>>>geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a Jetty only version of
>>>Geronimo with no unnecessary Tomcat resources.
>>>
>>>Minimum:
>>>geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
>>>Resources are installed for both, and the installer just sets the
>>>chosen web server to boot by default.
>>>geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
>>>both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Tomcat will start by default.
>>>geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
>>>both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Jetty will start by default.
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>>
>>>-dain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Binary images for Geronimo 1.0?
Posted by Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com>.
I would see the "mininum" as the ideal solution and the other as a
less preferrable.
Assuming that somebody starts with using Jetty and then finding that
Tomcat would have been the bettter choice it would be easier just to
change the configuration than to perform a complete re-install.
Just as a not counting opinion.
Best regards,
Heinz
On 11/5/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> I agree completely (your ideal is also my ideal, and your minimum is
> my preferred "worst case" as well).
>
> WRT the documentation, there are really no noticable differences
> between Tomcat and Jetty until you get far beyond the level of
> documentation we include in a release, so I don't think this will be a
> big issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 11/4/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> > With Geronimo 1.0 quickly approaching, I think we should talk about
> > how we would like to package the binaries for release. This has
> > downstream impact on tck testing, and since I'm working on the TCK
> > build right now, I'd like to know what we are going to need to test.
> > So to get the discussion going, this is what I think would be ideal
> > and what we need at the minimum:
> >
> > Ideal:
> > geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
> > Only the resources for the web server they choose are installed.
> > geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a Tomcat only version of
> > Geronimo with no Jetty resources.
> > geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a Jetty only version of
> > Geronimo with no unnecessary Tomcat resources.
> >
> > Minimum:
> > geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
> > Resources are installed for both, and the installer just sets the
> > chosen web server to boot by default.
> > geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
> > both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Tomcat will start by default.
> > geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
> > both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Jetty will start by default.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > -dain
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Binary images for Geronimo 1.0?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I agree completely (your ideal is also my ideal, and your minimum is
my preferred "worst case" as well).
WRT the documentation, there are really no noticable differences
between Tomcat and Jetty until you get far beyond the level of
documentation we include in a release, so I don't think this will be a
big issue.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 11/4/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> With Geronimo 1.0 quickly approaching, I think we should talk about
> how we would like to package the binaries for release. This has
> downstream impact on tck testing, and since I'm working on the TCK
> build right now, I'd like to know what we are going to need to test.
> So to get the discussion going, this is what I think would be ideal
> and what we need at the minimum:
>
> Ideal:
> geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
> Only the resources for the web server they choose are installed.
> geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a Tomcat only version of
> Geronimo with no Jetty resources.
> geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a Jetty only version of
> Geronimo with no unnecessary Tomcat resources.
>
> Minimum:
> geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
> Resources are installed for both, and the installer just sets the
> chosen web server to boot by default.
> geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
> both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Tomcat will start by default.
> geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
> both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Jetty will start by default.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -dain
>
>
>
Re: Binary images for Geronimo 1.0?
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
If footprint with both containers is not a problem, then I like your
"Minimum" scenario with a slight twist. The user has the option to choose.
But if he doesn't (want to) choose, we choose one by default.
This default chosen one is what we think a majority of users use. This will
help in the rapid out-of-the-box installation of G. This will also help
those users who don't know/care about the containers. But the few who'd
prefer a different container can always specify their choice. This is an
all-inclusive option.
There should also be documentation on how they can switch to the other
container.
Now all this looks good provided footprint is not a problem when both the
containers are installed.
Cheers
Prasad.
On 11/4/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
> With Geronimo 1.0 quickly approaching, I think we should talk about
> how we would like to package the binaries for release. This has
> downstream impact on tck testing, and since I'm working on the TCK
> build right now, I'd like to know what we are going to need to test.
> So to get the discussion going, this is what I think would be ideal
> and what we need at the minimum:
>
> Ideal:
> geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
> Only the resources for the web server they choose are installed.
> geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a Tomcat only version of
> Geronimo with no Jetty resources.
> geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a Jetty only version of
> Geronimo with no unnecessary Tomcat resources.
>
> Minimum:
> geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
> Resources are installed for both, and the installer just sets the
> chosen web server to boot by default.
> geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
> both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Tomcat will start by default.
> geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
> both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Jetty will start by default.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -dain
>
>
>