You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com> on 2007/04/27 04:17:08 UTC
Naming the servers
>From a discussion in another thread
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Help-needed-with-geronimo.sh-p10200885s134.html
The emerging structure of GERONIMO_HOME (GHOME) is:
GHOME/<instances>/template/var/...
GHOME/<instances>/geronimo01/var/... | <--- default
GHOME/<instances>/geronimo01/deploy/ |
...................................
...................................
Where instance could be 'server' or something. Given how precious
each character is we might have to go with -
GHOME/<instances>/template/var
GHOME/<instances>/g1/var
GHOME/<instances>/g1/deploy
GHOME/<instances>/g2/var
GHOME/<instances>/g2/deploy
...........................
If we are frugal about the <instance>, we could splurge on
<servername>! Suggestions are welcome..
Thanks
Anita
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
On 4/28/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I'd for for a name like "servers" for <instance>. Or, since space is
> not a concern how about
> "thisIsWhereTheServerInstanceDataIsLocatedIfYourLookingForIt"
:o)
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:07 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From a discussion in another thread
> >>
> > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Help-needed-with-geronimo.sh-
> > p10200885s134.html
> >>
> >> The emerging structure of GERONIMO_HOME (GHOME) is:
> >>
> >> GHOME/<instances>/template/var/...
> >> GHOME/<instances>/geronimo01/var/... | <--- default
> >> GHOME/<instances>/geronimo01/deploy/ |
> >> ...................................
> >> ...................................
> >> Where <instances> could be 'servers' or something.
> >
> > Please ignore the comment about long pathnames. I was thinking
> > about
> > the 'deploy' directory. AFAIK, it should not cause long path
> > problems..
> >
> > Thanks
> > Anita
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Can we hold off on any of these types of changes until we have the 2.0
> tck sorted?
>
> This isn't critical for 2.0, I'd even push this off to 2.1 to avoid
> disrupting the tck work that is going on now.
We definitely need to keep TCK as the top priority for now ... and my
personal thanks to Anita for backing out these changes to help us out
with that effort.
As far as this and other significant changes (significant in impact to
users that is ... not necessarily lines of code) I think we should make
the decision on a case by case basis if it can go into 2.0 or if it
should wait post 2.0.
This change seems a little controversial so we probably need a little
more discussion on it to reach consensus. Unfortunately, I think
people have been too focused on TCK to give it adequate attention. I'm
not sure if that will change until we reach 100% so perhaps we should
hold off making a decision until we're there (as Jason suggests).
Joe
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Can we hold off on any of these types of changes until we have the
2.0 tck sorted?
This isn't critical for 2.0, I'd even push this off to 2.1 to avoid
disrupting the tck work that is going on now.
--jason
On May 4, 2007, at 4:50 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
> I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
> instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var. This
> has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems with
> this
> change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should help.
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
--- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On May 7, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> This sounds reasnaonable and it would make life easier with a
> >> README.txt in ./instances to help people get going. Also, leaving
> >> the default geronimo single server in $G/var makes sense as priori
> >> users won't have to search where things are.
> >>
> >
> > I am glad that the supporters of 'var' have spoken up. During
> this
> > discussion 5 people preferred to keep the 'var' directory as is. So
>
> > the
> > default instance shall remain nameless.. Assuming that we are
> > going to
> > have a template/var, there is good news for the other 2 choices.
The other 2 people wanted either
GHOME/servers/template/var, and GHOME/servers/geronimo/var or
"instances/template" and "instances/default"
>
> My apologies if I've lost track of some of the discussion about
> this. I don't fully understand who is supposed to use this and for
> what. My impression is that the purpose of this feature is to make
> it easy to have lots of copies of identical servers, sharing some
> part of a geronimo installation. I then ask myself, "what server
> will anyone want to copy?". Well, IMO if its the one we ship we've
> done something wrong with explaining how to use geronimo. Here's my
>
> thinking. We ship with a (close to) toy database and definitely toy
>
> security. This is AFAICT a feature for large advanced production
> sites that are going to need a real db and real security (and
> presumably lots of other customized stuff). So the way I think of
> this being used is
>
> -- set up a prototype server with production db, real security,
> configured logging, and the exact modules you want running
> -- construct a template server from the prototype
> -- clone it as needed.
>
> My impression is that you've implemented step 3. This is definitely
>
> a really valuable and important function that we absolutely need, but
>
> I'm not convinced that it should be in our base server and especially
>
> without the other steps. I'm afraid it will make the basic server
> more complicated and confusing without adding a lot of value.
>
> So, there's a good chance I've missed something.... someone please
> point out what :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
> > Here
> > are some important points about customization:
> > 1. template 'var' dir can be put anywhere, it is not used by the
> > server. It is there just for making copies. One could put it in:
> > instances/template. Thus we will have -
> > instances/template/var
> > instances/README.txt
> > 2. The original default instance, i.e. 'var' can be deleted!!! An
> > instance with default ports can be put under instances/default. If
> > people do not like a nameless default instance, they can create one
> > with a name like 'servers/...' In other word this feature can be
> used
> > for naming the default instance. Please try this out and report any
> > problems.
This is an attempt to illustrate that one can customize their
server without having to worry about how/where the default instance
works from. I should definitely not be writing README.txt..:)
> > If every one agrees, I would like to commit
> instances/template/var
> > part [1]. It is a useful cosmetic change. Please do reply to this
> > thread if you need more time to think about this.
IMHO, the template (53K) provides a good starting point and
provides a glimpse of all the configuration files.
Thanks
Anita
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On May 7, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>
> --- Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>> This sounds reasnaonable and it would make life easier with a
>> README.txt in ./instances to help people get going. Also, leaving
>> the default geronimo single server in $G/var makes sense as priori
>> users won't have to search where things are.
>>
>
> I am glad that the supporters of 'var' have spoken up. During this
> discussion 5 people preferred to keep the 'var' directory as is. So
> the
> default instance shall remain nameless.. Assuming that we are
> going to
> have a template/var, there is good news for the other 2 choices.
My apologies if I've lost track of some of the discussion about
this. I don't fully understand who is supposed to use this and for
what. My impression is that the purpose of this feature is to make
it easy to have lots of copies of identical servers, sharing some
part of a geronimo installation. I then ask myself, "what server
will anyone want to copy?". Well, IMO if its the one we ship we've
done something wrong with explaining how to use geronimo. Here's my
thinking. We ship with a (close to) toy database and definitely toy
security. This is AFAICT a feature for large advanced production
sites that are going to need a real db and real security (and
presumably lots of other customized stuff). So the way I think of
this being used is
-- set up a prototype server with production db, real security,
configured logging, and the exact modules you want running
-- construct a template server from the prototype
-- clone it as needed.
My impression is that you've implemented step 3. This is definitely
a really valuable and important function that we absolutely need, but
I'm not convinced that it should be in our base server and especially
without the other steps. I'm afraid it will make the basic server
more complicated and confusing without adding a lot of value.
So, there's a good chance I've missed something.... someone please
point out what :-)
thanks
david jencks
> Here
> are some important points about customization:
> 1. template 'var' dir can be put anywhere, it is not used by the
> server. It is there just for making copies. One could put it in:
> instances/template. Thus we will have -
> instances/template/var
> instances/README.txt
> 2. The original default instance, i.e. 'var' can be deleted!!! An
> instance with default ports can be put under instances/default. If
> people do not like a nameless default instance, they can create one
> with a name like 'servers/...' In other word this feature can be used
> for naming the default instance. Please try this out and report any
> problems.
> If every one agrees, I would like to commit instances/template/var
> part [1]. It is a useful cosmetic change. Please do reply to this
> thread if you need more time to think about this.
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
--- Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >
> This sounds reasnaonable and it would make life easier with a
> README.txt in ./instances to help people get going. Also, leaving
> the default geronimo single server in $G/var makes sense as priori
> users won't have to search where things are.
>
I am glad that the supporters of 'var' have spoken up. During this
discussion 5 people preferred to keep the 'var' directory as is. So the
default instance shall remain nameless.. Assuming that we are going to
have a template/var, there is good news for the other 2 choices. Here
are some important points about customization:
1. template 'var' dir can be put anywhere, it is not used by the
server. It is there just for making copies. One could put it in:
instances/template. Thus we will have -
instances/template/var
instances/README.txt
2. The original default instance, i.e. 'var' can be deleted!!! An
instance with default ports can be put under instances/default. If
people do not like a nameless default instance, they can create one
with a name like 'servers/...' In other word this feature can be used
for naming the default instance. Please try this out and report any
problems.
If every one agrees, I would like to commit instances/template/var
part [1]. It is a useful cosmetic change. Please do reply to this
thread if you need more time to think about this.
Thanks
Anita
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
Currently if you run an instance named foo, your deploy directory
will be created automatically at foo/deploy.
Thanks
Anita
--- Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
> How is the GHOME/deploy directory handled for multiple instances? Do
> hot
> deployed apps get deployed to all instances or just the default one?
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
> Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
> > --- Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 4, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>> Also, has the geronimo-maven-plugin been updated to handle this
> >>> change?
> >>>
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3011#action_12493721
> >
> > If someone is aware of anything else that needs to be changed, I
> > welcome your suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Anita
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
How is the GHOME/deploy directory handled for multiple instances? Do hot
deployed apps get deployed to all instances or just the default one?
-Donald
Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
> --- Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
>> On May 4, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>
>>> Also, has the geronimo-maven-plugin been updated to handle this
>>> change?
>>>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3011#action_12493721
>
> If someone is aware of anything else that needs to be changed, I
> welcome your suggestions.
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
--- Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
> > Also, has the geronimo-maven-plugin been updated to handle this
> > change?
> >
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3011#action_12493721
If someone is aware of anything else that needs to be changed, I
welcome your suggestions.
Thanks
Anita
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On May 4, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> I like "instances/template" and "instances/default", as it maps to
> how some other app servers use "domains" for their instances
> directory....
>
> Also, has the geronimo-maven-plugin been updated to handle this
> change?
>
>
>
This sounds reasnaonable and it would make life easier with a
README.txt in ./instances to help people get going. Also, leaving
the default geronimo single server in $G/var makes sense as priori
users won't have to search where things are.
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
+1
-sachin
On May 4, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2007, at 10:45 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> 2. I think the predominant use of uncustomized geronimo will be as
>> a single server so I'm reluctant to, for this use, hide "var"
>> under a couple more directories. It would certainly make my use
>> of geronimo more complicated. I'm worried that to make life a
>> little easier for advanced users we may be making it more
>> complicated for beginners. What do other people think?
>
> I agree. I think Ideally this new feature would be invisible
> unless a user decides to user it.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On May 4, 2007, at 10:45 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> 2. I think the predominant use of uncustomized geronimo will be as
> a single server so I'm reluctant to, for this use, hide "var" under
> a couple more directories. It would certainly make my use of
> geronimo more complicated. I'm worried that to make life a little
> easier for advanced users we may be making it more complicated for
> beginners. What do other people think?
I agree. I think Ideally this new feature would be invisible unless
a user decides to user it.
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
David Jencks wrote:
> 2. I think the predominant use of uncustomized geronimo will be as a
> single server so I'm reluctant to, for this use, hide "var" under a
> couple more directories. It would certainly make my use of geronimo
> more complicated. I'm worried that to make life a little easier for
> advanced users we may be making it more complicated for beginners. What
> do other people think?
I agree. I'd like to see single server case remain unchanged. This
will also keep things consistent for people who have been working with
previous Geronimo releases. It's ok to make it a bit more complicated
if you want to do something more complicated - but let's not
unnecessarily frustrate those who have been working with Geronimo and
don't want the additional complexity.
Joe
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On May 4, 2007, at 7:45 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I haven't had time to look at this thoroughly but I have a couple
> comments anyway. Take them with plenty of salt.
>
> 1. IMO anyone using this feature is likely to want to heavily
> customize geronimo so their "template" bears little resemblance to
> what we supply. If they don't do this, we've failed to provide a
> sufficiently customizable server. So I think its equally important
> to provide facilities to extract a "minimal" server that will run a
> set of apps and make it the template.
>
> 2. I think the predominant use of uncustomized geronimo will be as
> a single server so I'm reluctant to, for this use, hide "var" under
> a couple more directories. It would certainly make my use of
> geronimo more complicated. I'm worried that to make life a little
> easier for advanced users we may be making it more complicated for
> beginners. What do other people think?
I dunno... It shouldn't be that much work to setup the default
configuration to be multi-node compatible. I recall that what I
setup for jbucks all so many years ago...
I do think that we need to provide some out of the box node-
management tools to go with this. I think that this would be ideal
use for GShell ;-) And actually the whole tiny-bootstrap JVM thingy
I've been mentioning here and there, would be ideal for GShell as
well...
--jason
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
One advantage of creating these template and instance directories (and
unrelated multiple repo support), is it allows users who want tighter
Unix/Linux integration (like Novell did with Geronimo 1.0 for their SUSE 10
distros) the support needed to create multiple RPMs and to allow users to
create their own server instances, without having write access to the base
server files and repo.
More comments in-line below.
David Jencks wrote:
> I haven't had time to look at this thoroughly but I have a couple
> comments anyway. Take them with plenty of salt.
>
> 1. IMO anyone using this feature is likely to want to heavily customize
> geronimo so their "template" bears little resemblance to what we
> supply. If they don't do this, we've failed to provide a sufficiently
> customizable server. So I think its equally important to provide
> facilities to extract a "minimal" server that will run a set of apps and
> make it the template.
I agree and suggested on an earlier thread that I would like to see us include
both the JEE5 and Minimal config files in the JEE5 server assembly. That way,
users can start with the minimal runtime footprint (which was about 50MB
earlier this week for Tomcat on Java5) and grow into a JEE5 server if needed.
Maybe all we need to do, is create pristine copies of those 2 configs in the
normal var/config directory, as config.xml.jee5 and config.xml.minimal.
>
> 2. I think the predominant use of uncustomized geronimo will be as a
> single server so I'm reluctant to, for this use, hide "var" under a
> couple more directories. It would certainly make my use of geronimo
> more complicated. I'm worried that to make life a little easier for
> advanced users we may be making it more complicated for beginners. What
> do other people think?
Agree, but at the same time, we need to provide guidance to our users on how
to correctly and reliably create additional instances without interfering with
the default server instance. Supplying a tool/script to do this would be the
ideal case, so the correct files would be copied over and the portOffset
updated...
-Donald
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On May 4, 2007, at 6:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> I like "instances/template" and "instances/default", as it maps to how
>> some other app servers use "domains" for their instances directory....
>>
>> Also, has the geronimo-maven-plugin been updated to handle this change?
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>> I'm not sure how others feel, on paper geronimo0 sounds fine but when
>>> I cd into the actual distribution and the first my eye catches is a
>>> geronimo0 folder and seems more like a typo error to me.
>>> What about just geronimo-default, or default-instance, or just
>>> default? Or perhaps an instances folder, with geronimo0 inside. I
>>> just have an issue with geronimo0 as a root folder.
>>> -sachin
>>> On May 4, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>> I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
>>>> instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var. This
>>>> has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems with this
>>>> change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should help.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Anita
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I haven't had time to look at this thoroughly but I have a couple
comments anyway. Take them with plenty of salt.
1. IMO anyone using this feature is likely to want to heavily
customize geronimo so their "template" bears little resemblance to
what we supply. If they don't do this, we've failed to provide a
sufficiently customizable server. So I think its equally important
to provide facilities to extract a "minimal" server that will run a
set of apps and make it the template.
2. I think the predominant use of uncustomized geronimo will be as a
single server so I'm reluctant to, for this use, hide "var" under a
couple more directories. It would certainly make my use of geronimo
more complicated. I'm worried that to make life a little easier for
advanced users we may be making it more complicated for beginners.
What do other people think?
thanks
david jencks
On May 4, 2007, at 6:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> I like "instances/template" and "instances/default", as it maps to
> how some other app servers use "domains" for their instances
> directory....
>
> Also, has the geronimo-maven-plugin been updated to handle this
> change?
>
>
> -Donald
>
> Sachin Patel wrote:
>> I'm not sure how others feel, on paper geronimo0 sounds fine but
>> when I cd into the actual distribution and the first my eye
>> catches is a geronimo0 folder and seems more like a typo error to me.
>> What about just geronimo-default, or default-instance, or just
>> default? Or perhaps an instances folder, with geronimo0 inside.
>> I just have an issue with geronimo0 as a root folder.
>> -sachin
>> On May 4, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>> I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
>>> instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var.
>>> This
>>> has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems
>>> with this
>>> change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should
>>> help.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Anita
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
I like "instances/template" and "instances/default", as it maps to how some other
app servers use "domains" for their instances directory....
Also, has the geronimo-maven-plugin been updated to handle this change?
-Donald
Sachin Patel wrote:
> I'm not sure how others feel, on paper geronimo0 sounds fine but when I
> cd into the actual distribution and the first my eye catches is a
> geronimo0 folder and seems more like a typo error to me.
>
> What about just geronimo-default, or default-instance, or just default?
> Or perhaps an instances folder, with geronimo0 inside. I just have an
> issue with geronimo0 as a root folder.
>
> -sachin
>
>
> On May 4, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>
>> I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
>> instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var. This
>> has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems with this
>> change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should help.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Anita
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Ted Kirby <te...@gmail.com>.
How about shipping this "out of the box":
GHOME/servers/template/var
GHOME/servers/geronimo/var -- the default server.
I am not wild about geronimo0 either.
Ted Kirby
On 5/4/07, Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The name of the folder can be easily changed to whatever name we
> agree upon...
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
> --- Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure how others feel, on paper geronimo0 sounds fine but when
> >
> > I cd into the actual distribution and the first my eye catches is a
> > geronimo0 folder and seems more like a typo error to me.
> >
> > What about just geronimo-default, or default-instance, or just
> > default? Or perhaps an instances folder, with geronimo0 inside. I
> > just have an issue with geronimo0 as a root folder.
> >
> > -sachin
> >
> >
> > On May 4, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
> >
> > > I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
> > > instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var.
> > This
> > > has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems with
> >
> > > this
> > > change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should
> > help.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Anita
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for earth-friendly autos?
> Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
>
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
The name of the folder can be easily changed to whatever name we
agree upon...
Thanks
Anita
--- Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure how others feel, on paper geronimo0 sounds fine but when
>
> I cd into the actual distribution and the first my eye catches is a
> geronimo0 folder and seems more like a typo error to me.
>
> What about just geronimo-default, or default-instance, or just
> default? Or perhaps an instances folder, with geronimo0 inside. I
> just have an issue with geronimo0 as a root folder.
>
> -sachin
>
>
> On May 4, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>
> > I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
> > instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var.
> This
> > has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems with
>
> > this
> > change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should
> help.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Anita
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
I'm not sure how others feel, on paper geronimo0 sounds fine but when
I cd into the actual distribution and the first my eye catches is a
geronimo0 folder and seems more like a typo error to me.
What about just geronimo-default, or default-instance, or just
default? Or perhaps an instances folder, with geronimo0 inside. I
just have an issue with geronimo0 as a root folder.
-sachin
On May 4, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
> I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
> instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var. This
> has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems with
> this
> change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should help.
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
I have committed changes in rev 535158. The name of the default
instance is now 'geronimo0', i.e. its 'var' is at geronimo0/var. This
has been tested only on windows. I do not expect any problems with this
change.. In case of a problem, creating an empty var/temp should help.
Thanks
Anita
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I'd for for a name like "servers" for <instance>. Or, since space is
not a concern how about
"thisIsWhereTheServerInstanceDataIsLocatedIfYourLookingForIt"
On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:07 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
>
> --- Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> From a discussion in another thread
>>
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Help-needed-with-geronimo.sh-
> p10200885s134.html
>>
>> The emerging structure of GERONIMO_HOME (GHOME) is:
>>
>> GHOME/<instances>/template/var/...
>> GHOME/<instances>/geronimo01/var/... | <--- default
>> GHOME/<instances>/geronimo01/deploy/ |
>> ...................................
>> ...................................
>> Where <instances> could be 'servers' or something.
>
> Please ignore the comment about long pathnames. I was thinking
> about
> the 'deploy' directory. AFAIK, it should not cause long path
> problems..
>
> Thanks
> Anita
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Re: Naming the servers
Posted by Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
--- Anita Kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From a discussion in another thread
>
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Help-needed-with-geronimo.sh-p10200885s134.html
>
> The emerging structure of GERONIMO_HOME (GHOME) is:
>
> GHOME/<instances>/template/var/...
> GHOME/<instances>/geronimo01/var/... | <--- default
> GHOME/<instances>/geronimo01/deploy/ |
> ...................................
> ...................................
> Where <instances> could be 'servers' or something.
Please ignore the comment about long pathnames. I was thinking about
the 'deploy' directory. AFAIK, it should not cause long path problems..
Thanks
Anita
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com