On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > On 6/10/10 11:22 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: >> >> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Donald Woods wrote: >> >>> Now that I have the initial web profile assemblies created and hooked >>> into our TCK harness, I'd like to circle back around on this. >>> >>> Personally, I like Option #1 - Upgrade and rename minimal assemblies to >>> EBA based assemblies. This way, all of the assemblies we build and >>> release will support the Aries EBA programming model. Users can choose >>> to build their own custom assemblies if they choose and leave out the >>> EBA and WAB support if they do not require it. Also, it looks like we >>> will have to add a few more modules into the web profile assemblies to >>> handle some of the TCK tests, along with missing console, monitoring >>> agent, clustering, .... which will probably make those assemblies grow >>> from the current 65MB to more like 80MB. >> >> The last time I checked (over a month ago), I seem to recall that an EBA >> assembly was pulling in components that I didn't think belonged in an EBA >> assembly (e.g. ActiveMQ). Was that fixed/changed? > > No ActiveMQ in the current EBA assembly. > > On that note, I recall the OSGi EEG is looking at adding Message Driven > Services. So, "EBA" is going to be a moving target overtime... And may > not always be a "minimal" environment.
I thought eba was a packaging idea, and the nature of the bundles inside would determine what happened next. So I would expect us to be able to support eba with just a web extender. >> > > Well, that could become a problem for our Web profile assembly which > includes EBA, as the TCK docs mention that if a web profile server > includes additional/optional Java EE technologies (aka. JMS or web > services from the Full profile) then the corresponding TCK buckets or > stand-alone tests must also be run. We'll have to run the connector tests I think anyway. > > >> I can imagine users being interested in WAB, EBA, Java EE Web, and Java EE >> Full functionality. I'm not sure that a multitude of assemblies is where we >> want to end up, however. I'm sure we don't want to be building 8 separate >> assemblies. >> > > True, but you still end up with a download that includes everything, > including the admin console. Still think we need a "smaller" download > option for 3.0 that doesn't include the console.... > Personally I don't really care as long as we have something we can ship :-) I think what is a good idea will come out as we work on it. thanks david jencks > >> I've mentioned this before, but I would like to consider packaging multiple >> configs (or allowing an assembly to easily run a subset of the installed >> functionality). Something like: >> >> geronimo run -c wab-config.xml >> geronimo run -c eba-config.xml >> etc. >> >> --kevan
