On 2/8/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm definitely *NOT* in-favor of 8 assemblies.
Ditto. Even if there was time and manpower to test every possible assembly then I still don't think the end user would be prepared to make an informed choice about which one to download.
On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > If there is a plugin option then I think the TCK discussion becomes > simpler. Anyway, for those more skilled in that art than I what > are the community thoughts on how to address our expanding set of > pluggable components?
I think that presenting the user with lots of choices is a good thing if geronimo can : 1.) provide a TCK tested default assembly 2.) help users make informed decisions about changing the defaults 3.) make it easy to enact their decisions 4.) allow them to change their minds later With that in mind, I think the ideal scenario (from a user's perspective) would be to provide one fully tested JEE5 assembly from the download page and then make it easy to swap out components after installation using plugins. Components that have passed the TCK in any assembly can be marked as such in the plugin catalog, along with any other useful information about that component such as which JEE spec it implements, etc. Components that are mutually exclusive like cxf and axis2, jetty and tomcat, etc can provide metadata that will prompt the plugin system to uninstall the component that is being replaced. There are lots of details and what-ifs that would need to be worked out before this approach can be fully realized. But if there's consensus around it then the next release could at least take a step in the right direction. AFAIK most if not all of the necessary functionality and infrastructure are already in place. Best wishes, Paul
