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 2008/06/05 17:07:03 UTC
[DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the vote
for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Joe
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
For something that is only designed to work with the 2.1.1 server
runtime, then Yes.
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
> Donald Woods wrote:
>> Would have been nice if this was versioned the same as the server it
>> is targeting.... at least a version=2.1 would have been better than 1.0.
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the
>>> vote for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>
> I thought about that ... but I decided to follow the precedent of other
> independent plugins that we have released from
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/plugins. So far, I think the
> only one that has been released is directory which was released as
> version 1.0 for the Geronimo 2.1 server.
>
> Are you asserting that we should change that precedent?
>
> Joe
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Donald Woods wrote:
> Would have been nice if this was versioned the same as the server it is
> targeting.... at least a version=2.1 would have been better than 1.0.
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the vote
>> for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>>
>> Joe
>>
I thought about that ... but I decided to follow the precedent of other
independent plugins that we have released from
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/plugins. So far, I think the
only one that has been released is directory which was released as
version 1.0 for the Geronimo 2.1 server.
Are you asserting that we should change that precedent?
Joe
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Would have been nice if this was versioned the same as the server it is
targeting.... at least a version=2.1 would have been better than 1.0.
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the vote
> for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>
> Joe
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
I still think the plugin is useful, but it really points out some of the
internal integration/architecture problems we have in the server today
that need to be addressed before we release a 2.2.
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
> Well ... this is certainly something to discuss ... perhaps a bit larger
> than this plugin in scope.
>
> As way of background ... the motivation for the plugin was to close out
> a discussion (and JIRA) that was nearly a year old. At the time (and in
> subsequent recent discussions) it decided that this simple plugin would
> provide one solution for users that wanted to share a common Geronimo
> installation image and have server specific instances each controlling
> it's own set of deployed applications. See GERONIMO-2814
> > [https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2814] for details. I
> think this plugin (and the wiki notes) provide a manageable but
> certainly not optimal solution for the desired configuration.
>
> Considering a default split between repositories for system vs. server
> use by default (even if only a single Geronimo server is running from an
> installation) is a much broader issue and requires more consensus from
> the community.
>
> Is it your opinion that we should not release this plugin and tackle
> this larger issue?
>
> I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this point.
>
> It seems that this simple plugin is becoming a hot-bed for several large
> issues ... plugin version management, repository structure/management
> ... what's next? :-)
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Donald Woods wrote:
>> Well, looking at the wiki page explaining this in the vote, I really
>> don't like the 2 notes/warnings at the bottom of the page.
>>
>> It seems that what we really need to do, is in 2.2 make a new server
>> instance repo under /var/repository the default for any user deployed
>> apps/plugins and update the current portlet to install/view items into
>> the repo, to only allow view rights to ghome/repository and
>> install/view to var/repository.
>>
>> That way, we don't get apps deployed to multiple repos at the same
>> time as the default behavior, users don't have to add a second repo
>> themselves (which require write access to the ghome/repository
>> directory) and it may help simplify how things would behave when WADI
>> clustering is used.
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the
>>> vote for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Well ... this is certainly something to discuss ... perhaps a bit larger
than this plugin in scope.
As way of background ... the motivation for the plugin was to close out
a discussion (and JIRA) that was nearly a year old. At the time (and in
subsequent recent discussions) it decided that this simple plugin would
provide one solution for users that wanted to share a common Geronimo
installation image and have server specific instances each controlling
it's own set of deployed applications. See GERONIMO-2814
> [https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2814] for details. I
think this plugin (and the wiki notes) provide a manageable but
certainly not optimal solution for the desired configuration.
Considering a default split between repositories for system vs. server
use by default (even if only a single Geronimo server is running from an
installation) is a much broader issue and requires more consensus from
the community.
Is it your opinion that we should not release this plugin and tackle
this larger issue?
I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this point.
It seems that this simple plugin is becoming a hot-bed for several large
issues ... plugin version management, repository structure/management
... what's next? :-)
Joe
Donald Woods wrote:
> Well, looking at the wiki page explaining this in the vote, I really
> don't like the 2 notes/warnings at the bottom of the page.
>
> It seems that what we really need to do, is in 2.2 make a new server
> instance repo under /var/repository the default for any user deployed
> apps/plugins and update the current portlet to install/view items into
> the repo, to only allow view rights to ghome/repository and install/view
> to var/repository.
>
> That way, we don't get apps deployed to multiple repos at the same time
> as the default behavior, users don't have to add a second repo
> themselves (which require write access to the ghome/repository
> directory) and it may help simplify how things would behave when WADI
> clustering is used.
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the vote
>> for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>>
>> Joe
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Well, looking at the wiki page explaining this in the vote, I really
don't like the 2 notes/warnings at the bottom of the page.
It seems that what we really need to do, is in 2.2 make a new server
instance repo under /var/repository the default for any user deployed
apps/plugins and update the current portlet to install/view items into
the repo, to only allow view rights to ghome/repository and install/view
to var/repository.
That way, we don't get apps deployed to multiple repos at the same time
as the default behavior, users don't have to add a second repo
themselves (which require write access to the ghome/repository
directory) and it may help simplify how things would behave when WADI
clustering is used.
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the vote
> for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>
> Joe
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 8, 2008, at 10:54 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the
>>> vote for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>> I'm inclined to vote -1. Nothing to do with the plugin, per se. It
>> looks fine. It's really a server issue...
>> Using a 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server, the plugin is evaluated as
>> "Installable". However, the plugin won't install because of a
>> dependency on 2.1.1 artifacts. I think we need to demonstrate that
>> we can handle this simple migration scenario, before releasing any
>> more plugins.
>> --kevan
>
> I understand your concern but I don't buy the logic of a -1 vote on
> the plugin. So we should not release a plugin for 2.1.1 that works
> fine on 2.1.1 because of a concern with the 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server
> which is not even yet released? It seems to me like your issue
> would really be with the 2.1.2 server when that eventually goes up
> for vote.
Yep. I'm not being entirely logical, just drawing a line in the sand.
I'd have the same opinion about a samples vote or a 2.1.2 server vote.
I'm not saying that it's the plugin's fault. My assumption is that we
can fix the migration issue by using artifact aliases in 2.1.2.
However, if we find that there's some change needed in the plugin,
itself, we should be fixing the problem, now.
--kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the
>>> vote for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>>
>> I'm inclined to vote -1. Nothing to do with the plugin, per se. It
>> looks fine. It's really a server issue...
>>
>> Using a 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server, the plugin is evaluated as
>> "Installable". However, the plugin won't install because of a
>> dependency on 2.1.1 artifacts. I think we need to demonstrate that we
>> can handle this simple migration scenario, before releasing any more
>> plugins.
>>
>> --kevan
>
> I understand your concern but I don't buy the logic of a -1 vote on the
> plugin. So we should not release a plugin for 2.1.1 that works fine on
> 2.1.1 because of a concern with the 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server which is not
> even yet released? It seems to me like your issue would really be with
> the 2.1.2 server when that eventually goes up for vote.
>
BTW, I am delaying calling the vote until we resolve this concern.
Joe
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the
>>> vote for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>>
>> I'm inclined to vote -1. Nothing to do with the plugin, per se. It
>> looks fine. It's really a server issue...
>>
>> Using a 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server, the plugin is evaluated as
>> "Installable". However, the plugin won't install because of a
>> dependency on 2.1.1 artifacts. I think we need to demonstrate that we
>> can handle this simple migration scenario, before releasing any more
>> plugins.
>>
>> --kevan
>
> I understand your concern but I don't buy the logic of a -1 vote on the
> plugin. So we should not release a plugin for 2.1.1 that works fine on
> 2.1.1 because of a concern with the 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server which is not
> even yet released? It seems to me like your issue would really be with
> the 2.1.2 server when that eventually goes up for vote.
>
Hmm ... perhaps this is a concern with the plugin itself. The reason
that the plugin is eligible to be installed on 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT (and even
2.2-SNAPSHOT for that matter) is because I didn't include the
car-maven-plugin config "includeVersion" set to true. Had this been set
the plugin would be marked as not installable in other Geronimo releases
... hence no concern. I think I left this off because I way
experimenting with the this attribute for the version compatibility issues.
So ... if this is a concern then perhaps we should spin a new plugin
image with strict Geronimo version checking for the plugin. Now the
question is ... "Should I make this simple change and respin the
existing plugin of should we tackle the larger version issue as Kevan
suggests using this plugin as a proof point?
Joe
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the vote
>> for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
>
> I'm inclined to vote -1. Nothing to do with the plugin, per se. It looks
> fine. It's really a server issue...
>
> Using a 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server, the plugin is evaluated as "Installable".
> However, the plugin won't install because of a dependency on 2.1.1
> artifacts. I think we need to demonstrate that we can handle this simple
> migration scenario, before releasing any more plugins.
>
> --kevan
I understand your concern but I don't buy the logic of a -1 vote on the
plugin. So we should not release a plugin for 2.1.1 that works fine on
2.1.1 because of a concern with the 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server which is not
even yet released? It seems to me like your issue would really be with
the 2.1.2 server when that eventually goes up for vote.
Joe
Re: [DISCUSS] Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the
> vote for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1.1
I'm inclined to vote -1. Nothing to do with the plugin, per se. It
looks fine. It's really a server issue...
Using a 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT server, the plugin is evaluated as
"Installable". However, the plugin won't install because of a
dependency on 2.1.1 artifacts. I think we need to demonstrate that we
can handle this simple migration scenario, before releasing any more
plugins.
--kevan