You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org> on 2005/12/19 15:52:37 UTC
Installer -- Phase 2
The next phase of the installer is supposed to only install selected
components as well as activating them in config.xml. Currently, the
installer installs all components and modifies config.xml to only start those
selected at install time.
My current plan is to make this an optional feature by adding somthing like a
"Lean install" pack that can be selected. This way folks who happen to want
everything installed, but only some parts configured can have the current
functionality.
Does anyone vehemently disagree with this approach?
--
Regards,
Erik
Re: Installer -- Phase 2
Posted by Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org>.
I'm about 70% complete with the code changes for phase 2. I still have to add
some validation and control for the new config.xml generation approach. The
GUI panels and the actual config.xml generation are done.
I probably won't be able to pick this back up until later this week since I'm
traveling.
I hope to post a patch for p2 later this week.
On Monday 19 December 2005 15:57, Erik Daughtrey wrote:
> Hmm, Well, usability aside, it sure changes the code I've written so far :)
>
> Actually, I think it is quite a good approach.
>
> IzPack allows any package to be selected on the pack selection panel as
> long as it's prereqs are satisfied (can't install Tomcat console without
> installing Tomcat).
>
> This all worked fairly well except that we have a condition not directly
> supported by IzPack which is that the operator is not allowed to configure
> both Jetty and Tomcat. The installer has override code to prevent the
> selection of both, but it does not run until the pack selection panel is
> exited.
>
> To some extent, the proposed change would change the semantics of the pack
> selection screen into something more in accordance with the way IzPack
> normally works.
>
> The changes I'd make to pull this off would be to:
> 1. Remove the Tomcat/Jetty "Configuration Problem" panel which shows when
> both are selected.
> 2. Add check boxes to each related configuration panel asking whether the
> config should be active.
> 3. Assume that any packs not selected should be marked false in the config.
> 4. Allow either Jetty or tomcat to be marked active, but not both. For
> ease of programming, some static text on the screen could warn of the
> inability to configure both (hmm, but only if both are to be installed).
> 5. Do the magic to build the config-store for the installed components.
> 6. probably lots of other things I have not thought of yet
>
> It's not too bad really. It probably is clearer. I'll do it this way.
>
> On Monday 19 December 2005 14:06, David Jencks wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Erik Daughtrey wrote:
> > > The next phase of the installer is supposed to only install selected
> > > components as well as activating them in config.xml. Currently, the
> > > installer installs all components and modifies config.xml to only
> > > start those
> > > selected at install time.
> > >
> > > My current plan is to make this an optional feature by adding
> > > somthing like a
> > > "Lean install" pack that can be selected. This way folks who
> > > happen to want
> > > everything installed, but only some parts configured can have the
> > > current
> > > functionality.
> > >
> > > Does anyone vehemently disagree with this approach?
> >
> > I think the maximum flexibility would come with:
> >
> > check boxes on the first page select which configurations are
> > actually included in the installed server.
> > check boxes (?? or something) on configuration-specific page controls
> > whether the configuration is turned on (load="true"/"false") in
> > config.xml.
> >
> > Would this be too hard to use?
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Erik
--
Regards,
Erik
Re: Installer -- Phase 2
Posted by Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org>.
Hmm, Well, usability aside, it sure changes the code I've written so far :)
Actually, I think it is quite a good approach.
IzPack allows any package to be selected on the pack selection panel as long
as it's prereqs are satisfied (can't install Tomcat console without
installing Tomcat).
This all worked fairly well except that we have a condition not directly
supported by IzPack which is that the operator is not allowed to configure
both Jetty and Tomcat. The installer has override code to prevent the
selection of both, but it does not run until the pack selection panel is
exited.
To some extent, the proposed change would change the semantics of the pack
selection screen into something more in accordance with the way IzPack
normally works.
The changes I'd make to pull this off would be to:
1. Remove the Tomcat/Jetty "Configuration Problem" panel which shows when both
are selected.
2. Add check boxes to each related configuration panel asking whether the
config should be active.
3. Assume that any packs not selected should be marked false in the config.
4. Allow either Jetty or tomcat to be marked active, but not both. For ease
of programming, some static text on the screen could warn of the inability
to configure both (hmm, but only if both are to be installed).
5. Do the magic to build the config-store for the installed components.
6. probably lots of other things I have not thought of yet
It's not too bad really. It probably is clearer. I'll do it this way.
On Monday 19 December 2005 14:06, David Jencks wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Erik Daughtrey wrote:
> > The next phase of the installer is supposed to only install selected
> > components as well as activating them in config.xml. Currently, the
> > installer installs all components and modifies config.xml to only
> > start those
> > selected at install time.
> >
> > My current plan is to make this an optional feature by adding
> > somthing like a
> > "Lean install" pack that can be selected. This way folks who
> > happen to want
> > everything installed, but only some parts configured can have the
> > current
> > functionality.
> >
> > Does anyone vehemently disagree with this approach?
>
> I think the maximum flexibility would come with:
>
> check boxes on the first page select which configurations are
> actually included in the installed server.
> check boxes (?? or something) on configuration-specific page controls
> whether the configuration is turned on (load="true"/"false") in
> config.xml.
>
> Would this be too hard to use?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
--
Regards,
Erik
Re: Installer -- Phase 2
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Dec 19, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Erik Daughtrey wrote:
> The next phase of the installer is supposed to only install selected
> components as well as activating them in config.xml. Currently, the
> installer installs all components and modifies config.xml to only
> start those
> selected at install time.
>
> My current plan is to make this an optional feature by adding
> somthing like a
> "Lean install" pack that can be selected. This way folks who
> happen to want
> everything installed, but only some parts configured can have the
> current
> functionality.
>
> Does anyone vehemently disagree with this approach?
I think the maximum flexibility would come with:
check boxes on the first page select which configurations are
actually included in the installed server.
check boxes (?? or something) on configuration-specific page controls
whether the configuration is turned on (load="true"/"false") in
config.xml.
Would this be too hard to use?
thanks
david jencks
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
Re: Installer -- Phase 2
Posted by Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org>.
Heinz,
I'm not in control of when this function gets pulled into the product. The
1.0 cutoff passed me by, but the current code should make it into 1.0.1.
The code that David's suggesting should not take too long, but this
functionality was slated for 1.1.
If you're willing to do a build, you could pull the latest patch off the JIRA
GERONIMO-1192, apply it against branches/1.0, build it and give it a whirl.
The patch is: installer-branches-1.0-200512181734.patch.gz.
gunzip it and apply it in the geronimo directory:
patch -p0 < installer-branches-1.0-200512181734.patch.
Otherwise, I believe an installer will hit 1.0.1.
On Monday 19 December 2005 14:05, Heinz Drews wrote:
> I will try to be patient.
>
> Can I get the Installer as Xmas gift :-)
>
> On 12/19/05, Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org> wrote:
> > In principal, I agree with your comments about minimal, default and
> > custom install, but I don't think this approach is necessary yet.
> > Once you have the opportunity to try the installer I think you'll see
> > what I mean. I could explain, but "a picture is worth a thousand words"
> > as they say.
> > There really are just a few options to select. Mixing and matching these
> > options into various configuration matrices might actually be more
> > confusing.
> >
> > On Monday 19 December 2005 12:41, Heinz Drews wrote:
> > > Hello Erik,
> > >
> > > the approach sounds just perfect.
> > >
> > > It would be great if the Installer would support a number of standard
> > > configurations.
> > >
> > > e.g "Minimal", "Default", ... "Custom".
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Heinz
> > >
> > > On 12/19/05, Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org> wrote:
> > > > The next phase of the installer is supposed to only install selected
> > > > components as well as activating them in config.xml. Currently, the
> > > > installer installs all components and modifies config.xml to only
> > > > start those selected at install time.
> > > >
> > > > My current plan is to make this an optional feature by adding
> > > > somthing like a "Lean install" pack that can be selected. This way
> > > > folks who happen to want everything installed, but only some parts
> > > > configured can have the current functionality.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone vehemently disagree with this approach?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Erik
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
--
Regards,
Erik
Re: Installer -- Phase 2
Posted by Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com>.
I will try to be patient.
Can I get the Installer as Xmas gift :-)
On 12/19/05, Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org> wrote:
> In principal, I agree with your comments about minimal, default and custom
> install, but I don't think this approach is necessary yet.
> Once you have the opportunity to try the installer I think you'll see what I
> mean. I could explain, but "a picture is worth a thousand words" as they
> say.
> There really are just a few options to select. Mixing and matching these
> options into various configuration matrices might actually be more confusing.
>
> On Monday 19 December 2005 12:41, Heinz Drews wrote:
> > Hello Erik,
> >
> > the approach sounds just perfect.
> >
> > It would be great if the Installer would support a number of standard
> > configurations.
> >
> > e.g "Minimal", "Default", ... "Custom".
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Heinz
> >
> > On 12/19/05, Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org> wrote:
> > > The next phase of the installer is supposed to only install selected
> > > components as well as activating them in config.xml. Currently, the
> > > installer installs all components and modifies config.xml to only start
> > > those selected at install time.
> > >
> > > My current plan is to make this an optional feature by adding somthing
> > > like a "Lean install" pack that can be selected. This way folks who
> > > happen to want everything installed, but only some parts configured can
> > > have the current functionality.
> > >
> > > Does anyone vehemently disagree with this approach?
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Erik
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
Re: Installer -- Phase 2
Posted by Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org>.
In principal, I agree with your comments about minimal, default and custom
install, but I don't think this approach is necessary yet.
Once you have the opportunity to try the installer I think you'll see what I
mean. I could explain, but "a picture is worth a thousand words" as they
say.
There really are just a few options to select. Mixing and matching these
options into various configuration matrices might actually be more confusing.
On Monday 19 December 2005 12:41, Heinz Drews wrote:
> Hello Erik,
>
> the approach sounds just perfect.
>
> It would be great if the Installer would support a number of standard
> configurations.
>
> e.g "Minimal", "Default", ... "Custom".
>
> Best regards,
> Heinz
>
> On 12/19/05, Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org> wrote:
> > The next phase of the installer is supposed to only install selected
> > components as well as activating them in config.xml. Currently, the
> > installer installs all components and modifies config.xml to only start
> > those selected at install time.
> >
> > My current plan is to make this an optional feature by adding somthing
> > like a "Lean install" pack that can be selected. This way folks who
> > happen to want everything installed, but only some parts configured can
> > have the current functionality.
> >
> > Does anyone vehemently disagree with this approach?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
--
Regards,
Erik
Re: Installer -- Phase 2
Posted by Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com>.
Hello Erik,
the approach sounds just perfect.
It would be great if the Installer would support a number of standard
configurations.
e.g "Minimal", "Default", ... "Custom".
Best regards,
Heinz
On 12/19/05, Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org> wrote:
> The next phase of the installer is supposed to only install selected
> components as well as activating them in config.xml. Currently, the
> installer installs all components and modifies config.xml to only start those
> selected at install time.
>
> My current plan is to make this an optional feature by adding somthing like a
> "Lean install" pack that can be selected. This way folks who happen to want
> everything installed, but only some parts configured can have the current
> functionality.
>
> Does anyone vehemently disagree with this approach?
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>