On 8/9/05, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> aix - AIX
> freebsd - FreeBSD
> hpux, hpux64 - HP-UX, 32 and 64-bit versions.
> irix - SGI Irix
> linux - Linux kernels; 2.2.x 2.4.x, 2.6.x. Known to work with Debian and
> Red Hat, but should work with any distribution.
> macosx - Macintosh OS X.
> osf1 - DEC OSF1.
> solaris - Sun OS, Solaris 7, 8.
> win32 - Windows NT, 2000, XP, and 2003.
This list seems to include a fairly standard set of supported
platforms. However, over time, it seems reasonable to consider that
some requests for platforms that are, shall I say, fairly non-standard
(e.g., AS400, OS/2, z/OS, etc.) will be made. I hazard a guess that
users will need to contribute in some way to support those platforms
anyway, correct? E.g, I don't even know anyone who has access to an
AS400.
> If we go down the binary route (other than Windows), we, as Geronimo,
> will be forced to compile and support additional binaries that are
> beyond the above list.
>
> IMHO, I believe we are better off writing shell scripts which, for the
> most part, are platform independent (except for Windows), so that we
> only need to support Java and generic shell.
>
> For Windows, we can provide both bat scripts as well as a Java Service
> Wrapper implementation *for that platform only*, so that people have the
> ability to run Geronimo as an NT service or command line.
>
> I am a little concerned with getting into the binary business, as this
> could eventually limit what platforms Geronimo runs on, and we may end
> up with a nasty headache having to support these binaries. So I would
> recommend we not use Java Service Wrapper beyond Windows.
I must pose another question in answer to your question above: Should
the minority platforms rule the majority?
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
