Great list. I think we should start thinking about how we all want Geronimo to be "known" as in the community. Right now I think we are known as the "J2EE/Java EE5" server. I think we need to begin pushing Geronimo more for what it is and what it can do...i.e. a pluggable lightweight container with management.
IMHO the OSGI/Spring component is really huge! Jeff Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Seems like the dev list has been a bit quiet lately as I know many > folks have been working on getting 2.0 done and through some additional > testing for Axis, fit and finish stuff, etc. Although important, its > not exactly the next generation so I thought I'd start this thread to > get some ideas formed around the next step for AG. These are just my > thoughts and I'm soliciting input for ideas and discussion. > > I thought I'd put my thoughts in the form of a user describing what they > need from Geronimo. This is based on input I've heard from several > folks as well as users and includes some of my own ideas as well. It > feels like we've been chasing the specs for so long that we haven't > fully realized some of the other awesome ideas people have had. Aaron's > plugin architecture is workable but not fully consumable, Dain's > repository work and a host of other ideas. I think now is the time to > have some fun. To that end here is the list of requirements. > > Geronimo 2.1 Punch List > > *Flexible framework for building server assemblies that include only the > components needed for an application* > > This means that a user could either build a custom assembly with only > the needed parts or, alternatively, could run with all parts available > but only start what they need. The model is up to the user to decide > based on their unique requirements. > > *Dynamically binding needed elements* > > Using the plugin architecture and Maven repo concepts one could install > a needed element into the server by simply pointing to a remote > repository and installing the element. Other artifacts needed for > execution would be obtained automagically from either the network or a > shared filesystem as needed and based on the policies provided by the > user. The default mode of operation would provide the best user > experience. > > *Dynamic Console for managing installed artifacts* > > Improve the console framework to allow installed artifacts to register a > portlet for managing the configuration. For highest level of > flexibility a component would provide the required portlet elemtns and > we would bind them into the navigation framework and security > infracstructure. We'd need a good set of docs and samples to help > people in deploying this easy. Ideally we would start with a minimal > assembly and a mgmt console so that new functions could be loaded > through the console. I'm not sure that we'd need to have an assembly > smaller than minimal at this point since we'd need a web container for > the mgmt console anyway. > > *Cluster Aware Mgmt Application* > > For users that want to federate a number of servers together we need a > clustering solution that will allow for configuration of nodes as well > as autodiscovery. This requires a clustering element for Geronimo that > takes into account multiple clustering users (services). I think Jeff > has some of the foundation in GCache. > > > *SOA Assembly* > It would be great to have a SOA assembly (that works in a flexible way > :) with AMQ, ServiceMix and a Tx Manager. A LOT of people I talk to > want something simple like a Tomcat and a Mule...let's give it to them. > > > *Tooling* > A really huge part of what people have talked about as being important > is tooling integration (I've heard mostly about Eclipse and NetBeans). > > > *OSGi and Spring* > This has been kicked around for a long time. I was talking with someone > who said they needed a flexible runtime that would allow them to wire in > OSGi bundles (seems like the traction is increasing) and use Spring for > the configuration. People smarter than I can weigh in on this area but > this is seems to get Independent Software Vendors (ISV's) all hot under > the collar. If we could deliver this with the flexible server stuff I > think we'd have a huge swell of interest. > > > Other thoughts? >
