David Jencks wrote:
I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly be
constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just because
there has been no progress on this goal in the last year...
I agree. That was the original vision and why the framework assembly
was created.
I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we can
actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
heh ... I'll bet that would work! ;-) I also agree that we're pretty
close with some of the progress on the web console extensibility piece
so that we can start building the assemblies from the plugins. That's
actually what spawned the question again now. We'll build up assemblies
from some "base" framework via plugins and collections of plugins (I and
others have referred to these as templates at other times) to create our
default server configurations or custom user/system assemblies.
I was just wondering what the best "starting point" was for this. While
a base framework without a web container is the most architecturally
pure ... it might not be the most user friendly. It could be argued
that it doesn't make sense to deliver to users a core framework that
isn't good for anything unless something is added to it. I supposed we
could hide the complexity with a template installer (or perhaps build
installing the template/plugins into server initialization on the first
server start or some other "non-install" activity). That way users that
just want a minimal or jee5 assembly don't have to deal directly
directly with the framework. We'll have to give this some more thought.
Oh well ... you've all convinced me that it might be too soon to pull
the plug on the framework assembly and it may very well still be the
core assembly. Thanks to all that responded.
Joe
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use the
framework assembly? One scenario that comes to mind is an installer
that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on top of it
for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly already seems to
fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the installer could
just remove the web container in the uncommon(?) cases where its not
needed. So the minimal assembly could be the base line for an
installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly that serves as the
low-end for our users (i.e. no installer required). Plus, since the
minimal assembly has a web container we could use a web UI for the
installer instead of some native app like we used to have -- actually
the "installer" is more like a plugin configurer from that point of view.
What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly could
be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very cool
btw!!) play into this discussion?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework
"ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this
assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
(without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal
assemblies we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the
pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction to
make this the primary interface for building and managing the server
... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal starting
point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always
include a web container?
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dwoods
Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
New Revision: 568632
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
Log:
adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
(original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Wed
Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
<dependencies>
<dependency>
+ <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
+ <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
+ <version>${version}</version>
+ </dependency>
+
+ <dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
<artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
<version>${version}</version>
