On Aug 1, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I want to provide the necessary features in the web console to
handle the stuff that a user is likely to want to change.
Would this include the ability to add GBeans as well as configure
existing ones?
So far I am really against adding gbeans to existing configurations. I
don't have a problem with the web console generating entirely new
configurations, although I doubt it is all that useful. My opinions
can always be argued against :-)
david jencks
I further would
like to have that implemented under the covers by a management API
that
can be invoked outside of the web console. I further have the idea
that
to change stuff while the server is "not running" (including parts
that
barf on startup) we could load the server into a
loaded-but-not-started
mode and then use the management API against that -- presumably with
some
kind of command line tool, that's much more limited that the web
console
(at least, the minimum requirements are ports and perhaps SSL
configuration, because those are the things that actually prevent you
from
starting the server to run the web console or a generic JMX or JSR-77
client).
All that aside, the installer package leaves copies of the
(customized) plans it uses. Perhaps the ZIP/GZ package should do the
same.
Aaron
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
Hi,
I want to open up a discussion for binary distribution.
Currently we are not packaging the plans in the binary distribution.
This will likely cause some issues with the users as it will be
inevitable that the configurations will need changing. Examples
will be SSL certificates (i.e. keyfiles)...to have an AJP connector
or not...have a Realm that covers the entire server, or even Virtual
Hosts. These are all typically server level configurations and
much less at an application specific level. I would say most users
who want to use Geronimo in production *will* be having a need to
change the configuration, and I think rebuilding from source is not
acceptable.
We need to make the ability to alter these objects and easily change
the config without the need to download the entire source base.
I think this is a critical path issue that we need to address before
a 1.0 release as it will cause huge complaints IMHO.
My .02...I think that packaging the plans with the assembly (and
maybe a maven script or other to easily enable a redeployment
(cli?)) is a short term solution and something we need to come to
terms with, but we should also discuss our long term goals around
this.
Comments?
Jeff
