You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> on 2008/05/21 15:21:25 UTC
[Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container, i.e.
Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should we add a
non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the demo
running in an not-J2EE environment.
Paul Spencer
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right. I'm for #3... And lets face it. The EASIEST way to run the demo is
> to download the tag and in the demo directory type mvn jetty:run..
+1 on that.
If they contain doesn't ship what it should... why should we fix that ?
Documentation on Tomcat/jetty doesn't hurt!
-M
>
> Hey Paul, do you want to contribute the documentation via the website or
> wiki?
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>
>> Scott and Andrew,
>> The goal is to make it easy for a user to get the demo up and running with
>> minimal frustration. Since I am not currently working in a J2EE
>> environment, my desire to quickly get the demo running in order to test the
>> 1.2.8 release did not include a J2EE server. I dropped the war in an
>> available Tomcat server and then had to determine why the demo failed to
>> run. After determining the I need a JSTL jar, I was able to test the
>> release.
>>
>> I make the following suggested solutions, in order of preference:
>>
>> 1) "distribute" a non-J2EE Demo and Blank either in the existing Example
>> distribution or in an non-J2EE distribution.
>>
>> 2) Add installation instruction that include instructions for J2EE and
>> non-J2EE environments. The instructions, including any required jars,
>> should be included in the .zip/.tar.gz file.
>>
>> 3) Add instructions on building a non-J2EE environment from the source.
>>
>> What ever solution is chosen, the instructions should also be on the
>> Demo's web page[1].
>>
>> Paul Spencer
>>
>>
>> [1]http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>>
>>
>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's what I proposed. Paul wants us to "distribute" the non-j2ee
>>> version with our examples...
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can relatively easily create a tomcat profile that could be used to
>>>> deploy onto tomcat by changing the dependency scope from to provided
>>>> to compile right?
>>>>
>>>> Just as we have the jetty profile and the jetty plugin registered, we
>>>> can do the same for tomcat I think.
>>>>
>>>> The drawback of course is maintaining the poms for different servers
>>>>
>>>> -Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well documentation is easy. I'm just not excited about having to
>>>>> maintain
>>>>> two trees or wasting a lot of spacing building multiple versions of a
>>>>> demo
>>>>> application when all someone has to do is look at the pre-req's and
>>>>> make
>>>>> sure it's available in their environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this is document where :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution is
>>>>>> build
>>>>>> for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone installing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>>> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
>>>>>>>> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> JSTL exists )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not then when should distribute :
>>>>>>>> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
>>>>>>>> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
>>>>>>>>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which
>>>>>>>>> includes the
>>>>>>>>> JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy
>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>> add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container,
>>>>>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>>>>> Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should we
>>>>>>>>>> add a
>>>>>>>>>> non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the
>>>>>>>>>> demo
>>>>>>>>>> running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Hey Paul, can you do me a favor and JIRA up this improvement? It'll
allow us to track the patches for this enhancement.
For what it's worth, I *DO* think what you're trying to do has merit,
I'm just not a big fan of making binary distributions for every possible
container, especially when building the demo is so easy. In either
case, we'll need some changes to the pom and if we do website
documentation then it'll need some changes to be made to the site as well.
Scott
Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> Right. I'm for #3... And lets face it. The EASIEST way to run the
> demo is to download the tag and in the demo directory type mvn
> jetty:run..
>
> Hey Paul, do you want to contribute the documentation via the website
> or wiki?
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>> Scott and Andrew,
>> The goal is to make it easy for a user to get the demo up and running
>> with minimal frustration. Since I am not currently working in a J2EE
>> environment, my desire to quickly get the demo running in order to
>> test the 1.2.8 release did not include a J2EE server. I dropped the
>> war in an available Tomcat server and then had to determine why the
>> demo failed to run. After determining the I need a JSTL jar, I was
>> able to test the release.
>>
>> I make the following suggested solutions, in order of preference:
>>
>> 1) "distribute" a non-J2EE Demo and Blank either in the existing
>> Example distribution or in an non-J2EE distribution.
>>
>> 2) Add installation instruction that include instructions for J2EE
>> and non-J2EE environments. The instructions, including any required
>> jars, should be included in the .zip/.tar.gz file.
>>
>> 3) Add instructions on building a non-J2EE environment from the source.
>>
>> What ever solution is chosen, the instructions should also be on the
>> Demo's web page[1].
>>
>> Paul Spencer
>>
>> [1]http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's what I proposed. Paul wants us to "distribute" the
>>> non-j2ee version with our examples...
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can relatively easily create a tomcat profile that could be used to
>>>> deploy onto tomcat by changing the dependency scope from to provided
>>>> to compile right?
>>>>
>>>> Just as we have the jetty profile and the jetty plugin registered, we
>>>> can do the same for tomcat I think.
>>>>
>>>> The drawback of course is maintaining the poms for different servers
>>>>
>>>> -Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Scott O'Bryan
>>>> <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well documentation is easy. I'm just not excited about having to
>>>>> maintain
>>>>> two trees or wasting a lot of spacing building multiple versions
>>>>> of a demo
>>>>> application when all someone has to do is look at the pre-req's
>>>>> and make
>>>>> sure it's available in their environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations
>>>>>>> outside of the
>>>>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this is document where :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
>>>>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed
>>>>>> and the
>>>>>> installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution
>>>>>> is build
>>>>>> for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone
>>>>>> installing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations
>>>>>>> outside of the
>>>>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>>> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
>>>>>>>> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2
>>>>>>>> copies/version of
>>>>>>>> JSTL exists )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not then when should distribute :
>>>>>>>> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
>>>>>>>> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we
>>>>>>>>> deploy the
>>>>>>>>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which
>>>>>>>>> includes the
>>>>>>>>> JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be
>>>>>>>>> easy enough to
>>>>>>>>> add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE
>>>>>>>>>> container, i.e.
>>>>>>>>>> Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should
>>>>>>>>>> we add a
>>>>>>>>>> non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting
>>>>>>>>>> the demo
>>>>>>>>>> running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Right. I'm for #3... And lets face it. The EASIEST way to run the
demo is to download the tag and in the demo directory type mvn jetty:run..
Hey Paul, do you want to contribute the documentation via the website or
wiki?
Scott
Paul Spencer wrote:
> Scott and Andrew,
> The goal is to make it easy for a user to get the demo up and running
> with minimal frustration. Since I am not currently working in a J2EE
> environment, my desire to quickly get the demo running in order to
> test the 1.2.8 release did not include a J2EE server. I dropped the
> war in an available Tomcat server and then had to determine why the
> demo failed to run. After determining the I need a JSTL jar, I was
> able to test the release.
>
> I make the following suggested solutions, in order of preference:
>
> 1) "distribute" a non-J2EE Demo and Blank either in the existing
> Example distribution or in an non-J2EE distribution.
>
> 2) Add installation instruction that include instructions for J2EE and
> non-J2EE environments. The instructions, including any required jars,
> should be included in the .zip/.tar.gz file.
>
> 3) Add instructions on building a non-J2EE environment from the source.
>
> What ever solution is chosen, the instructions should also be on the
> Demo's web page[1].
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> [1]http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>
>
>
> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I proposed. Paul wants us to "distribute" the
>> non-j2ee version with our examples...
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> We can relatively easily create a tomcat profile that could be used to
>>> deploy onto tomcat by changing the dependency scope from to provided
>>> to compile right?
>>>
>>> Just as we have the jetty profile and the jetty plugin registered, we
>>> can do the same for tomcat I think.
>>>
>>> The drawback of course is maintaining the poms for different servers
>>>
>>> -Andrew
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well documentation is easy. I'm just not excited about having to
>>>> maintain
>>>> two trees or wasting a lot of spacing building multiple versions of
>>>> a demo
>>>> application when all someone has to do is look at the pre-req's and
>>>> make
>>>> sure it's available in their environment.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And this is document where :)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
>>>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed
>>>>> and the
>>>>> installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution
>>>>> is build
>>>>> for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone installing
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
>>>>>>> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2
>>>>>>> copies/version of
>>>>>>> JSTL exists )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not then when should distribute :
>>>>>>> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
>>>>>>> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which
>>>>>>>> includes the
>>>>>>>> JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy
>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>> add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE
>>>>>>>>> container, i.e.
>>>>>>>>> Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should
>>>>>>>>> we add a
>>>>>>>>> non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting
>>>>>>>>> the demo
>>>>>>>>> running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Scott and Andrew,
The goal is to make it easy for a user to get the demo up and running
with minimal frustration. Since I am not currently working in a J2EE
environment, my desire to quickly get the demo running in order to test
the 1.2.8 release did not include a J2EE server. I dropped the war in
an available Tomcat server and then had to determine why the demo failed
to run. After determining the I need a JSTL jar, I was able to test the
release.
I make the following suggested solutions, in order of preference:
1) "distribute" a non-J2EE Demo and Blank either in the existing Example
distribution or in an non-J2EE distribution.
2) Add installation instruction that include instructions for J2EE and
non-J2EE environments. The instructions, including any required jars,
should be included in the .zip/.tar.gz file.
3) Add instructions on building a non-J2EE environment from the source.
What ever solution is chosen, the instructions should also be on the
Demo's web page[1].
Paul Spencer
[1]http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Yeah, that's what I proposed. Paul wants us to "distribute" the
> non-j2ee version with our examples...
>
> Scott
>
> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>
>> We can relatively easily create a tomcat profile that could be used to
>> deploy onto tomcat by changing the dependency scope from to provided
>> to compile right?
>>
>> Just as we have the jetty profile and the jetty plugin registered, we
>> can do the same for tomcat I think.
>>
>> The drawback of course is maintaining the poms for different servers
>>
>> -Andrew
>>
>> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well documentation is easy. I'm just not excited about having to
>>> maintain
>>> two trees or wasting a lot of spacing building multiple versions of a
>>> demo
>>> application when all someone has to do is look at the pre-req's and make
>>> sure it's available in their environment.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Scott,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside
>>>>> of the
>>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And this is document where :)
>>>>
>>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
>>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed
>>>> and the
>>>> installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution is
>>>> build
>>>> for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone installing it.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>
>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside
>>>>> of the
>>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
>>>>>> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version of
>>>>>> JSTL exists )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not then when should distribute :
>>>>>> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
>>>>>> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
>>>>>>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which
>>>>>>> includes the
>>>>>>> JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy
>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>> add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container,
>>>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>>> Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should we
>>>>>>>> add a
>>>>>>>> non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the
>>>>>>>> demo
>>>>>>>> running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Andrew,
Yeah, that's what I proposed. Paul wants us to "distribute" the
non-j2ee version with our examples...
Scott
Andrew Robinson wrote:
> We can relatively easily create a tomcat profile that could be used to
> deploy onto tomcat by changing the dependency scope from to provided
> to compile right?
>
> Just as we have the jetty profile and the jetty plugin registered, we
> can do the same for tomcat I think.
>
> The drawback of course is maintaining the poms for different servers
>
> -Andrew
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well documentation is easy. I'm just not excited about having to maintain
>> two trees or wasting a lot of spacing building multiple versions of a demo
>> application when all someone has to do is look at the pre-req's and make
>> sure it's available in their environment.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
>>>>
>>> And this is document where :)
>>>
>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
>>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed and the
>>> installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution is build
>>> for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone installing it.
>>>
>>> Paul Spencer
>>>
>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
>>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scott,
>>>>> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
>>>>> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version of
>>>>> JSTL exists )
>>>>>
>>>>> If not then when should distribute :
>>>>> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
>>>>> or
>>>>> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
>>>>> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
>>>>>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which includes the
>>>>>> JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy enough to
>>>>>> add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container, i.e.
>>>>>>> Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should we add a
>>>>>>> non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the demo
>>>>>>> running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
We can relatively easily create a tomcat profile that could be used to
deploy onto tomcat by changing the dependency scope from to provided
to compile right?
Just as we have the jetty profile and the jetty plugin registered, we
can do the same for tomcat I think.
The drawback of course is maintaining the poms for different servers
-Andrew
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well documentation is easy. I'm just not excited about having to maintain
> two trees or wasting a lot of spacing building multiple versions of a demo
> application when all someone has to do is look at the pre-req's and make
> sure it's available in their environment.
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>
>> Scott,
>>>
>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
>>
>> And this is document where :)
>>
>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
>> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>>
>>
>> I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed and the
>> installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution is build
>> for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone installing it.
>>
>> Paul Spencer
>>
>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>
>>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
>>> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Scott,
>>>> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
>>>> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version of
>>>> JSTL exists )
>>>>
>>>> If not then when should distribute :
>>>> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
>>>> or
>>>> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
>>>> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>>>>
>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>
>>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
>>>>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which includes the
>>>>> JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy enough to
>>>>> add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container, i.e.
>>>>>> Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should we add a
>>>>>> non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the demo
>>>>>> running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Well documentation is easy. I'm just not excited about having to
maintain two trees or wasting a lot of spacing building multiple
versions of a demo application when all someone has to do is look at the
pre-req's and make sure it's available in their environment.
Scott
Paul Spencer wrote:
> Scott,
>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of
>> the standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>> themselves.
> And this is document where :)
>
> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
> http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
>
>
> I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed and
> the installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution
> is build for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone
> installing it.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of
>> the standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch
>> themselves.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>> Scott,
>>> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
>>> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version of
>>> JSTL exists )
>>>
>>> If not then when should distribute :
>>> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
>>> or
>>> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
>>> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>>>
>>> Paul Spencer
>>>
>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
>>>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which
>>>> includes the JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it
>>>> should be easy enough to add them to tomcat as a shared library as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container,
>>>>> i.e. Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should
>>>>> we add a non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the
>>>>> demo running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Scott,
> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
And this is document where :)
http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed and
the installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution is
build for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone installing it.
Paul Spencer
Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
> standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>> Scott,
>> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
>> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version of
>> JSTL exists )
>>
>> If not then when should distribute :
>> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
>> or
>> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
>> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>>
>> Paul Spencer
>>
>> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
>>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which includes
>>> the JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy
>>> enough to add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container,
>>>> i.e. Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should
>>>> we add a non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>>
>>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the
>>>> demo running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Spencer
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
Scott
Paul Spencer wrote:
> Scott,
> If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
> ( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version of
> JSTL exists )
>
> If not then when should distribute :
> A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
> or
> B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
> trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
>> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which includes
>> the JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy
>> enough to add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container,
>>> i.e. Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should
>>> we add a non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>>
>>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the
>>> demo running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>>
>>> Paul Spencer
>>
>>
>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Scott,
If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version of
JSTL exists )
If not then when should distribute :
A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
or
B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
Paul Spencer
Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
> myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which includes the
> JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy enough
> to add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container, i.e.
>> Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should we add a
>> non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>>
>> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the demo
>> running in an not-J2EE environment.
>>
>> Paul Spencer
>
>
Re: [Trinidad] Should a non-J2EE demo war be added to the distribution?
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which includes the
JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy enough
to add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
Scott
Paul Spencer wrote:
> The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container, i.e.
> Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should we add a
> non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
>
> I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the demo
> running in an not-J2EE environment.
>
> Paul Spencer