You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> on 2011/09/20 19:55:17 UTC
Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Hi,
In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider read-only
vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could be
shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
maintenance.
Here's what I identified so far:
read-only:
- bin
- jsr88
- schema
- lib
read/write:
- deploy
- hotbundles
- etc
- var
The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it could
be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we should
have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
another one for applications.
Thanks,
Jarek
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org>.
Jarek,
I appreciate this discussion was started.
I am working through multiple-instance support for Geronimo, and it seems the
code is not consistent in using org.apache.geronimo.home.dir (geronimoHome) vs
org.apache.geronio.server.dir (geronimoBase).
The correct use of the two is hinted at in these two source files:
1.
trunk/framework/modules/geronimo-main/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/main/Utils.java
- getGeronimoHome()
- getGeronimoBase()
2.
trunk/framework/configs/karaf-framework/src/main/distribution/text/etc/system.properties
- in regards to the intended purposes of karaf.home vs karaf.base (read the
comments)
- use of org.apache.geronimo.home.dir vs org.apache.geronimo.server.dir is similar.
- org.apache.geronimo.server.dir is same as the now dead
org.apache.geronimo.base.dir (a.k.a GERONIMO_BASE which I probably helped kill 3
years ago) which was not always being used correctly.
If the directories are read-only, they should be referenced from the system
property org.apache.geronimo.home.dir
- bin
- jsr88
- schema
- lib
If the directories are read-write, they should be referenced from the system
property org.apache.geronimo.server.dir (a.k.a. geronimoBase)
See:
trunk/framework/modules/geronimo-main/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/main/Utils.java
- deploy
- hotbundles
- etc
- var
As you hinted, the repository/ directory could go in either right now. But
because G3 cannot share repositories, it needs to be referenced under
org.apache.geronimo.server.dir . But Geronimo does not currently allow for that:
GERONIMO-6175 .
I have been combing through the code, and the use of either is not entirely
consistent. And in several locations geronimo code is redundantly trying to
figure out the server base, otherwise the code just prepends the
org.apache.geronimo.home.dir system property to whatever it is looking for
(which is not always correct).
With the addition of karaf in G3.0, and its similar needed config, it might
appear there could be some confusion in the code as to what should be under
karaf.home vs karaf.base system properties.
If we want to share multiple instances of Geronimo (and I do) this needs to be
straightened out. I'd like to see something like getGeronimoHome() and
getGeronimoBase() from the package org.apache.geronimo.main.Utils used in every
instance the server base needs to be known.
And we should make a formal decision as to what directories should be available
under `base` vs `home`.
-RG
On 09/20/2011 12:55 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider read-only
> vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could be
> shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
> maintenance.
>
> Here's what I identified so far:
>
> read-only:
> - bin
> - jsr88
> - schema
> - lib
>
> read/write:
> - deploy
> - hotbundles
> - etc
> - var
>
> The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it could
> be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we should
> have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
> another one for applications.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org>.
Jarek,
I have been unable to locate a thread which we discussed about sharing
repositories. IIRC, there are (or were at some time) some components that wrote
back to the repository - and I am not thinking they are the applications.
Geronimo at one time was able to share repositories, probably in G2.1, but
currently I believe the only way to have more than one Geronimo instances that
do not collide with each other is for them to each have their own copy of a
repository.
With Rex's revision 1174575 (see GERONIMO-5987), I am able to startup multiple
instances of the trunk 3.0 tomcat7 javaee6 bundle starting with the snapshot
released today (it did not work for G3.0 trunk builds until today).
Otherwise, what you have listed for read-only vs. read-write is correct, but
with the addition of "repositories" as read-write. I have updated the related
wiki page to reflect this identification.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC30/Running+multiple+Geronimo+instances
-RG
On 09/20/2011 12:55 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider read-only
> vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could be
> shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
> maintenance.
>
> Here's what I identified so far:
>
> read-only:
> - bin
> - jsr88
> - schema
> - lib
>
> read/write:
> - deploy
> - hotbundles
> - etc
> - var
>
> The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it could
> be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we should
> have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
> another one for applications.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
The lib directory might also need read/write, as it contains the endorsed
folder, for the bin directory, there might also be changes, as there is a
setjavaenv script files which are used to add system properties by end
users.
Not sure I understand correctly, do you mean to grant read-only permission
to those folders ?
2011/9/21 Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>
> If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is
> pretty cheap nowadays.
>
> And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space is
> karaf "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
>
> -Rex
>
>
> 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
>
>> This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1 branch, but
>> not supported in trunk now.
>>
>> Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances with a
>> same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature now.
>>
>> Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Forrest
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider read-only
>>> vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could be
>>> shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
>>> maintenance.
>>>
>>> Here's what I identified so far:
>>>
>>> read-only:
>>> - bin
>>> - jsr88
>>> - schema
>>> - lib
>>>
>>> read/write:
>>> - deploy
>>> - hotbundles
>>> - etc
>>> - var
>>>
>>> The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it could
>>> be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we should
>>> have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
>>> another one for applications.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jarek
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org
>
--
Ivan
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org>.
With Rex's latest commit for GERONIMO-5987, and testing with
geronimo-tomcat7-javaee6-3.0-20110923.091022-350-bin, I am able to run multiple
instances of the Geronino javaee6 bundle now.
To make it work, you have to follow my specific startup procedure I gave in
GERONIMO-5987 which refers to an example I put into the Wiki page
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC30/Running+multiple+Geronimo+instances
.
We're still having a minor issue with conflicting ActiveMQ lock files (actually
the ActiveMQ working directory) if you do not startup the Geronimo instances in
a particular way.
Jeff and Forrest
I am able to start up multiple instances of the javaee6 bundle now, but I have
not tested extended operation of them. Do you two know of any other issues
preventing a successful operation of multiple instances within a single runtime
OS as I outlined in the Wiki page example I referenced above?
-RG
On 09/22/2011 11:03 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote:
> It should be noted that as long as JIRA GERONIMO-5987 goes unresolved, even if
> you install several copies of Geronimo into different file structure locations
> (e.g. /opt/g1 and /opt/g2), the javaee6 bundle does not allow multiple Geronimo
> servers to run within the same runtime OS.
>
> GERONIMO-5987 is the open issue for the ActiveMQ port configuration. Currently
> ActiveMQ listens on port 61616 and you cannot change that in any configuration.
> Thus prohibiting anymore than one Geronimo javaee6 server from running on a
> single runtime OS.
>
> I just updated JIRA GERONIMO-5987 to reflect the current status of the issue,
> which has made a small step forward by listing the ActiveMQ service and actual
> bind port (opposed to the configured bind port) in the Geronimo startup output.
>
> -RG
>
>
> On 09/22/2011 04:29 AM, chi runhua wrote:
>> The way by sharing the repository or certain folders is not enabled in 3.0 yet.
>> To run multiple instances on one machine, the only way is to copy the server
>> folder to another place on the disk, and then start the server after changing
>> the offPortset value in config-substitutions.properties file.
>>
>> Jeff C
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 3.0 does not have the feature like the doc for multiple instances support.
>> The doc needs update.
>>
>> Forrest
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Russell E Glaue <rglaue@cait.org
>> <ma...@cait.org>> wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK, we still have a desire to support multiple instances per Geronimo
>> base
>> install.
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/running-multiple-geronimo-instances.html
>>
>> We have been working towards a common configuration location in 3.0
>> trunk for
>> all parts of Geronimo.
>>
>> I am expecting to test and use multiple instances with the 3.0 release.
>>
>> -RG
>>
>>
>> On 09/20/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>> > If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is
>> pretty
>> > cheap nowadays.
>> >
>> > And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space
>> is karaf
>> > "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
>> >
>> > -Rex
>> >
>> > 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com> <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>>>
>> >
>> > This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1
>> branch, but
>> > not supported in trunk now.
>> >
>> > Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances
>> with a
>> > same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature now.
>> >
>> > Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Forrest
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:jgawor@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider
>> read-only
>> > vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories
>> could be
>> > shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
>> > maintenance.
>> >
>> > Here's what I identified so far:
>> >
>> > read-only:
>> > - bin
>> > - jsr88
>> > - schema
>> > - lib
>> >
>> > read/write:
>> > - deploy
>> > - hotbundles
>> > - etc
>> > - var
>> >
>> > The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of
>> it could
>> > be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we
>> should
>> > have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
>> > another one for applications.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jarek
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Lei Wang (Rex)
>> > rwonly AT apache.org <http://apache.org> <http://apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org>.
It should be noted that as long as JIRA GERONIMO-5987 goes unresolved, even if
you install several copies of Geronimo into different file structure locations
(e.g. /opt/g1 and /opt/g2), the javaee6 bundle does not allow multiple Geronimo
servers to run within the same runtime OS.
GERONIMO-5987 is the open issue for the ActiveMQ port configuration. Currently
ActiveMQ listens on port 61616 and you cannot change that in any configuration.
Thus prohibiting anymore than one Geronimo javaee6 server from running on a
single runtime OS.
I just updated JIRA GERONIMO-5987 to reflect the current status of the issue,
which has made a small step forward by listing the ActiveMQ service and actual
bind port (opposed to the configured bind port) in the Geronimo startup output.
-RG
On 09/22/2011 04:29 AM, chi runhua wrote:
> The way by sharing the repository or certain folders is not enabled in 3.0 yet.
> To run multiple instances on one machine, the only way is to copy the server
> folder to another place on the disk, and then start the server after changing
> the offPortset value in config-substitutions.properties file.
>
> Jeff C
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 3.0 does not have the feature like the doc for multiple instances support.
> The doc needs update.
>
> Forrest
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Russell E Glaue <rglaue@cait.org
> <ma...@cait.org>> wrote:
>
> AFAIK, we still have a desire to support multiple instances per Geronimo
> base
> install.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/running-multiple-geronimo-instances.html
>
> We have been working towards a common configuration location in 3.0
> trunk for
> all parts of Geronimo.
>
> I am expecting to test and use multiple instances with the 3.0 release.
>
> -RG
>
>
> On 09/20/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
> > If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is
> pretty
> > cheap nowadays.
> >
> > And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space
> is karaf
> > "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
> >
> > -Rex
> >
> > 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com> <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> >
> > This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1
> branch, but
> > not supported in trunk now.
> >
> > Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances
> with a
> > same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature now.
> >
> > Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Forrest
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:jgawor@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider
> read-only
> > vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories
> could be
> > shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
> > maintenance.
> >
> > Here's what I identified so far:
> >
> > read-only:
> > - bin
> > - jsr88
> > - schema
> > - lib
> >
> > read/write:
> > - deploy
> > - hotbundles
> > - etc
> > - var
> >
> > The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of
> it could
> > be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we
> should
> > have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
> > another one for applications.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jarek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lei Wang (Rex)
> > rwonly AT apache.org <http://apache.org> <http://apache.org>
>
>
>
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org>.
When there are multiple instances, they do not share repositories. Each instance
must have its own copy of the repository.
That Wiki page is actually still relevant and correct. There is a note on that
page that multiple instances for the javaee6 bundle is currently not working.
That note need only be updated to document the additional JIRA issues that
prevent it.
However, the Geronimo minimal bundle does not package the extra javaee6 stuff
that prohibited multiple instances from working.
And just to make sure, I just successfully tested multiple instances with the
latest minimal SNAPSHOT, geronimo-tomcat7-minimal-3.0-20110922.084001-349. Seems
to work... for me.
If everyone can give me the JIRA numbers of the issues preventing multiple
instances with the javaee6 bundle, I'll add them to that related note on the
Wiki page.
-RG
On 09/22/2011 04:29 AM, chi runhua wrote:
> The way by sharing the repository or certain folders is not enabled in 3.0 yet.
> To run multiple instances on one machine, the only way is to copy the server
> folder to another place on the disk, and then start the server after changing
> the offPortset value in config-substitutions.properties file.
>
> Jeff C
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 3.0 does not have the feature like the doc for multiple instances support.
> The doc needs update.
>
> Forrest
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Russell E Glaue <rglaue@cait.org
> <ma...@cait.org>> wrote:
>
> AFAIK, we still have a desire to support multiple instances per Geronimo
> base
> install.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/running-multiple-geronimo-instances.html
>
> We have been working towards a common configuration location in 3.0
> trunk for
> all parts of Geronimo.
>
> I am expecting to test and use multiple instances with the 3.0 release.
>
> -RG
>
>
> On 09/20/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
> > If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is
> pretty
> > cheap nowadays.
> >
> > And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space
> is karaf
> > "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
> >
> > -Rex
> >
> > 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com> <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> >
> > This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1
> branch, but
> > not supported in trunk now.
> >
> > Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances
> with a
> > same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature now.
> >
> > Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Forrest
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:jgawor@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider
> read-only
> > vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories
> could be
> > shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
> > maintenance.
> >
> > Here's what I identified so far:
> >
> > read-only:
> > - bin
> > - jsr88
> > - schema
> > - lib
> >
> > read/write:
> > - deploy
> > - hotbundles
> > - etc
> > - var
> >
> > The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of
> it could
> > be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we
> should
> > have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
> > another one for applications.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jarek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lei Wang (Rex)
> > rwonly AT apache.org <http://apache.org> <http://apache.org>
>
>
>
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by chi runhua <ch...@gmail.com>.
The way by sharing the repository or certain folders is not enabled in 3.0
yet. To run multiple instances on one machine, the only way is to copy the
server folder to another place on the disk, and then start the server after
changing the offPortset value in config-substitutions.properties file.
Jeff C
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3.0 does not have the feature like the doc for multiple instances support.
> The doc needs update.
>
> Forrest
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, we still have a desire to support multiple instances per Geronimo
>> base
>> install.
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/running-multiple-geronimo-instances.html
>>
>> We have been working towards a common configuration location in 3.0 trunk
>> for
>> all parts of Geronimo.
>>
>> I am expecting to test and use multiple instances with the 3.0 release.
>>
>> -RG
>>
>>
>> On 09/20/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
>> > If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is
>> pretty
>> > cheap nowadays.
>> >
>> > And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space is
>> karaf
>> > "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
>> >
>> > -Rex
>> >
>> > 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com <mailto:forrestxm@gmail.com
>> >>
>> >
>> > This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1
>> branch, but
>> > not supported in trunk now.
>> >
>> > Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances
>> with a
>> > same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature
>> now.
>> >
>> > Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Forrest
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider
>> read-only
>> > vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could
>> be
>> > shared among multiple installations to save some space and
>> reduce
>> > maintenance.
>> >
>> > Here's what I identified so far:
>> >
>> > read-only:
>> > - bin
>> > - jsr88
>> > - schema
>> > - lib
>> >
>> > read/write:
>> > - deploy
>> > - hotbundles
>> > - etc
>> > - var
>> >
>> > The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it
>> could
>> > be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we
>> should
>> > have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles
>> and
>> > another one for applications.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jarek
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Lei Wang (Rex)
>> > rwonly AT apache.org <http://apache.org>
>>
>
>
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
3.0 does not have the feature like the doc for multiple instances support.
The doc needs update.
Forrest
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org> wrote:
> AFAIK, we still have a desire to support multiple instances per Geronimo
> base
> install.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/running-multiple-geronimo-instances.html
>
> We have been working towards a common configuration location in 3.0 trunk
> for
> all parts of Geronimo.
>
> I am expecting to test and use multiple instances with the 3.0 release.
>
> -RG
>
>
> On 09/20/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
> > If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is
> pretty
> > cheap nowadays.
> >
> > And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space is
> karaf
> > "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
> >
> > -Rex
> >
> > 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >
> > This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1
> branch, but
> > not supported in trunk now.
> >
> > Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances
> with a
> > same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature
> now.
> >
> > Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Forrest
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider
> read-only
> > vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could
> be
> > shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
> > maintenance.
> >
> > Here's what I identified so far:
> >
> > read-only:
> > - bin
> > - jsr88
> > - schema
> > - lib
> >
> > read/write:
> > - deploy
> > - hotbundles
> > - etc
> > - var
> >
> > The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it
> could
> > be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we
> should
> > have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
> > another one for applications.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jarek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lei Wang (Rex)
> > rwonly AT apache.org <http://apache.org>
>
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Russell E Glaue <rg...@cait.org>.
AFAIK, we still have a desire to support multiple instances per Geronimo base
install.
https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/running-multiple-geronimo-instances.html
We have been working towards a common configuration location in 3.0 trunk for
all parts of Geronimo.
I am expecting to test and use multiple instances with the 3.0 release.
-RG
On 09/20/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
> If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is pretty
> cheap nowadays.
>
> And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space is karaf
> "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
>
> -Rex
>
> 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>
> This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1 branch, but
> not supported in trunk now.
>
> Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances with a
> same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature now.
>
> Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
>
> Regards,
> Forrest
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider read-only
> vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could be
> shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
> maintenance.
>
> Here's what I identified so far:
>
> read-only:
> - bin
> - jsr88
> - schema
> - lib
>
> read/write:
> - deploy
> - hotbundles
> - etc
> - var
>
> The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it could
> be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we should
> have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
> another one for applications.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org <http://apache.org>
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>.
If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is pretty
cheap nowadays.
And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space is
karaf "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start..
-Rex
2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
> This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1 branch, but
> not supported in trunk now.
>
> Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances with a
> same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature now.
>
> Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
>
> Regards,
> Forrest
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider read-only
>> vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could be
>> shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
>> maintenance.
>>
>> Here's what I identified so far:
>>
>> read-only:
>> - bin
>> - jsr88
>> - schema
>> - lib
>>
>> read/write:
>> - deploy
>> - hotbundles
>> - etc
>> - var
>>
>> The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it could
>> be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we should
>> have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
>> another one for applications.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jarek
>>
>
>
--
Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org
Re: Geronimo directory structure & permissions
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1 branch, but
not supported in trunk now.
Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances with a
same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature now.
Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x?
Regards,
Forrest
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider read-only
> vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could be
> shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce
> maintenance.
>
> Here's what I identified so far:
>
> read-only:
> - bin
> - jsr88
> - schema
> - lib
>
> read/write:
> - deploy
> - hotbundles
> - etc
> - var
>
> The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it could
> be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we should
> have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and
> another one for applications.
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek
>