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
