You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> on 2007/08/22 17:12:23 UTC
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework
"ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this
assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
(without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal assemblies
we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the pluggable
console and it seems like are heading in a direction to make this the
primary interface for building and managing the server ... but of course
it requires a web container as a minimal starting point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and work
on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always include
a web container?
Joe
dwoods@apache.org wrote:
> Author: dwoods
> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
> New Revision: 568632
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
> Log:
> adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
>
> Modified:
> geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>
> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml (original)
> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
> @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
> <dependencies>
>
> <dependency>
> + <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
> + <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
> + <version>${version}</version>
> + </dependency>
> +
> + <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
> <artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
> <version>${version}</version>
>
>
>
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
I'm not using it. Was just fixing a Maven depends problem...
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
> Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework
> "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this
> assembly prior to seeing this change.
>
> At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
> (without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
> However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
> container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal assemblies
> we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the pluggable
> console and it seems like are heading in a direction to make this the
> primary interface for building and managing the server ... but of course
> it requires a web container as a minimal starting point.
>
> So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and work
> on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always include
> a web container?
>
> Joe
>
>
> dwoods@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: dwoods
>> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>> New Revision: 568632
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
>> Log:
>> adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
>>
>> Modified:
>> geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>
>> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>> URL:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>>
>> --- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>> (original)
>> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Wed
>> Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>> @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
>> <dependencies>
>> <dependency>
>> + <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>> + <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
>> + <version>${version}</version>
>> + </dependency>
>> +
>> + <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
>> <artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
>> <version>${version}</version>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
How to assemble a server (was: Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:13 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework
>> assembly be constructed by adding plugins to the framework
>> assembly. Just because there has been no progress on this goal in
>> the last year...
>
> I agree. That was the original vision and why the framework
> assembly was created.
>
>> I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we
>> can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
>> assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
>
> heh ... I'll bet that would work! ;-) I also agree that we're
> pretty close with some of the progress on the web console
> extensibility piece so that we can start building the assemblies
> from the plugins. That's actually what spawned the question again
> now. We'll build up assemblies from some "base" framework via
> plugins and collections of plugins (I and others have referred to
> these as templates at other times) to create our default server
> configurations or custom user/system assemblies.
>
> I was just wondering what the best "starting point" was for this.
> While a base framework without a web container is the most
> architecturally pure ... it might not be the most user friendly.
> It could be argued that it doesn't make sense to deliver to users a
> core framework that isn't good for anything unless something is
> added to it. I supposed we could hide the complexity with a
> template installer (or perhaps build installing the template/
> plugins into server initialization on the first server start or
> some other "non-install" activity). That way users that just want
> a minimal or jee5 assembly don't have to deal directly directly
> with the framework. We'll have to give this some more thought.
I don't see our starting point (e.g. the framework server) as
limiting the preconfigured servers we distribute. Even after we have
a wonderful "build your own server from plugins" tool we may well
want to ship some servers where we have added a few things... such as
a web container.
In any case I think the main bits missing from assembly from plugins
are the plugin metadata/installation being able to modify more of the
files in var and in particular var/config such as all the
artifact_aliases.properties and config-substitutions.properties.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Oh well ... you've all convinced me that it might be too soon to
> pull the plug on the framework assembly and it may very well still
> be the core assembly. Thanks to all that responded.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>>> Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we
>>> use the framework assembly? One scenario that comes to mind is
>>> an installer that lays down the framework and then installs
>>> plugins on top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal
>>> assembly already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though,
>>> assuming the installer could just remove the web container in the
>>> uncommon(?) cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly
>>> could be the base line for an installer plus double as a
>>> preconfigured assembly that serves as the low-end for our users
>>> (i.e. no installer required). Plus, since the minimal assembly
>>> has a web container we could use a web UI for the installer
>>> instead of some native app like we used to have -- actually the
>>> "installer" is more like a plugin configurer from that point of
>>> view.
>>>
>>> What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly
>>> could be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very
>>> cool btw!!) play into this discussion?
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
>>>> framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
>>>> removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
>>>>
>>>> At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal
>>>> assembly (without even a web container) for building up a
>>>> pluggable server. However, it seems like the tide is changing to
>>>> always expect a web container in the smallest framework assembly
>>>> (ie. the minimal assemblies we already have). There's been a
>>>> lot of cool work on the pluggable console and it seems like are
>>>> heading in a direction to make this the primary interface for
>>>> building and managing the server ... but of course it requires a
>>>> web container as a minimal starting point.
>>>>
>>>> So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly
>>>> and work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies
>>>> should always include a web container?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dwoods@apache.org wrote:
>>>>> Author: dwoods
>>>>> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>>> New Revision: 568632
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
>>>>> Modified:
>>>>> geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>>> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/
>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/
>>>>> assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?
>>>>> rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
>>>>> ==================================================================
>>>>> ============
>>>>> --- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>>> (original)
>>>>> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>>> Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
>>>>> <dependencies>
>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>> + <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>>>>> + <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
>>>>> + <version>${version}</version>
>>>>> + </dependency>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + <dependency>
>>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
>>>>> <artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
>>>>> <version>${version}</version>
>>>
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
David Jencks wrote:
> I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly be
> constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just because
> there has been no progress on this goal in the last year...
I agree. That was the original vision and why the framework assembly
was created.
>
> I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we can
> actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
> assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
heh ... I'll bet that would work! ;-) I also agree that we're pretty
close with some of the progress on the web console extensibility piece
so that we can start building the assemblies from the plugins. That's
actually what spawned the question again now. We'll build up assemblies
from some "base" framework via plugins and collections of plugins (I and
others have referred to these as templates at other times) to create our
default server configurations or custom user/system assemblies.
I was just wondering what the best "starting point" was for this. While
a base framework without a web container is the most architecturally
pure ... it might not be the most user friendly. It could be argued
that it doesn't make sense to deliver to users a core framework that
isn't good for anything unless something is added to it. I supposed we
could hide the complexity with a template installer (or perhaps build
installing the template/plugins into server initialization on the first
server start or some other "non-install" activity). That way users that
just want a minimal or jee5 assembly don't have to deal directly
directly with the framework. We'll have to give this some more thought.
Oh well ... you've all convinced me that it might be too soon to pull
the plug on the framework assembly and it may very well still be the
core assembly. Thanks to all that responded.
Joe
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>> Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use the
>> framework assembly? One scenario that comes to mind is an installer
>> that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on top of it
>> for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly already seems to
>> fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the installer could
>> just remove the web container in the uncommon(?) cases where its not
>> needed. So the minimal assembly could be the base line for an
>> installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly that serves as the
>> low-end for our users (i.e. no installer required). Plus, since the
>> minimal assembly has a web container we could use a web UI for the
>> installer instead of some native app like we used to have -- actually
>> the "installer" is more like a plugin configurer from that point of view.
>>
>> What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly could
>> be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very cool
>> btw!!) play into this discussion?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework
>>> "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this
>>> assembly prior to seeing this change.
>>>
>>> At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
>>> (without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
>>> However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
>>> container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal
>>> assemblies we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the
>>> pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction to
>>> make this the primary interface for building and managing the server
>>> ... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal starting
>>> point.
>>>
>>> So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
>>> work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always
>>> include a web container?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> dwoods@apache.org wrote:
>>>> Author: dwoods
>>>> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>> New Revision: 568632
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
>>>> Modified:
>>>> geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>> URL:
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
>>>>
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>
>>>> --- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>>> (original)
>>>> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Wed
>>>> Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
>>>> <dependencies>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> + <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>>>> + <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
>>>> + <version>${version}</version>
>>>> + </dependency>
>>>> +
>>>> + <dependency>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
>>>> <version>${version}</version>
>>
>
>
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:52 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework
> assembly be constructed by adding plugins to the framework
> assembly. Just because there has been no progress on this goal in
> the last year...
I definitely agree with your vision here. My main reservation with
taking on that line of thought was, like you said, the lack of
progress on the framework += customizations approach since the
zzzzj2ee-installer (sorry, bad joke). To be fair though I should
acknowledge that we have been just a little distracted on that JEE5
thing. :-)
There are some issues like how OSGI, xbean, and spring can/should/
will affect our framework and plugin strategy, and that hurts me poor
brain. Good thing we have lots of clever people contributing to this
project. Now is a good time to start those discussions and set our
sites on a new goal. This is one I think we can all rally around
and contribute to in various ways.
> I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we
> can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
> assembly. We could remove all the others to
> spur on this process :-)
That just might do the trick!
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
+1
Thanks
Anita
--- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly
>
> be constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just
> because there has been no progress on this goal in the last year...
>
> I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we
> can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
> assembly.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly
be constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just
because there has been no progress on this goal in the last year...
I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we
can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use
> the framework assembly? One scenario that comes to mind is an
> installer that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on
> top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly
> already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the
> installer could just remove the web container in the uncommon(?)
> cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly could be the
> base line for an installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly
> that serves as the low-end for our users (i.e. no installer
> required). Plus, since the minimal assembly has a web container we
> could use a web UI for the installer instead of some native app
> like we used to have -- actually the "installer" is more like a
> plugin configurer from that point of view.
>
> What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly
> could be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very
> cool btw!!) play into this discussion?
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
>> framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
>> removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
>>
>> At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal
>> assembly (without even a web container) for building up a
>> pluggable server. However, it seems like the tide is changing to
>> always expect a web container in the smallest framework assembly
>> (ie. the minimal assemblies we already have). There's been a lot
>> of cool work on the pluggable console and it seems like are
>> heading in a direction to make this the primary interface for
>> building and managing the server ... but of course it requires a
>> web container as a minimal starting point.
>>
>> So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
>> work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should
>> always include a web container?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> dwoods@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: dwoods
>>> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>> New Revision: 568632
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
>>> Modified:
>>> geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/
>>> pom.xml
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/
>>> assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?
>>> rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
>>> ====================================================================
>>> ==========
>>> --- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>> (original)
>>> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>>> Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>>> @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
>>> <dependencies>
>>> <dependency>
>>> + <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>>> + <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
>>> + <version>${version}</version>
>>> + </dependency>
>>> +
>>> + <dependency>
>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
>>> <version>${version}</version>
>
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use
the framework assembly? One scenario that comes to mind is an
installer that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on
top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly
already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the
installer could just remove the web container in the uncommon(?)
cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly could be the
base line for an installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly
that serves as the low-end for our users (i.e. no installer
required). Plus, since the minimal assembly has a web container we
could use a web UI for the installer instead of some native app like
we used to have -- actually the "installer" is more like a plugin
configurer from that point of view.
What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly could
be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very cool
btw!!) play into this discussion?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
> framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
> removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
>
> At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
> (without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
> However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
> container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal
> assemblies we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on
> the pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction
> to make this the primary interface for building and managing the
> server ... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal
> starting point.
>
> So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
> work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should
> always include a web container?
>
> Joe
>
>
> dwoods@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: dwoods
>> Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>> New Revision: 568632
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
>> Log:
>> adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
>> Modified:
>> geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>> Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/
>> geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
>> =====================================================================
>> =========
>> --- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>> (original)
>> +++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
>> Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
>> @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
>> <dependencies>
>> <dependency>
>> + <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
>> + <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
>> + <version>${version}</version>
>> + </dependency>
>> +
>> + <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
>> <artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
>> <version>${version}</version>
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
> framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
> removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
Can't say that I'm using it, but I wouldn't be in a rush to delete
it, either.
>
> At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
> (without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
> However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
> container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal
> assemblies we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on
> the pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction
> to make this the primary interface for building and managing the
> server ... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal
> starting point.
>
> So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
> work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should
> always include a web container?
IMO, no. The console is being extended with the same type of
flexibility that the server runtime currently enjoys. This doesn't
mean that console capability is a prerequisite for your server
runtime... I'd like to maintain the ability to run a server without a
web container...
--kevan