Sounds close, but I was proposing that we have a bootstrap version that
we use to build the first few jars and configurations. Are you planing
on supporting installation into a raw "cold" config store directory?
In this case we couldn't possibly have a running server yet (since we
are still building it :)
-dain
--
Dain Sundstrom
Chief Architect
Gluecode Software
310.536.8355, ext. 26
On Mar 30, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
This sounds like the geronimo-packaging-plugin:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk/plugins/geronimo-
packaging-plugin/
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200503.mbox/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm nearly finished with the next set of changes which includes
support for packaging any type of module.
--
Jeremy
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Aaron,
A while back we had a discussion about one vs. two deployment tools.
IIRC, you wanted two tools because the command line options for the
"package" command did not fit well into JSR88, and I thought having
multiple deploy tools would be confusing. After working with the
deploy code and thinking about the problem, I have come to the
conclusion that you were right and *I was wrong*.
I think we should break out the package command and merge it with the
bootstrap deployer to create a new tool that is only available via
maven and which we use to bootstrap our server during assembly. This
tool would only be capable of deploying service plan files, and could
either create an executable jar or an entry in a local config store.
In addition, I think the tool should let us specify an ant style
manifest, so we can remove all the funky arguments to the deploy
command that creates a manifest. This new tool could considerably
speed up the assembly process.
What do you think?
-dain
--
Dain Sundstrom
Chief Architect
Gluecode Software
310.536.8355, ext. 26
