+1 These are my sentiments as well.
-dain
On Aug 22, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I really disagree with having separate namespaces for the entire
web deployment plan for Tomcat and Jetty. It makes Geronimo+Tomcat
and
Geronimo+Jetty totally different products. If I'm going to release a
typical application for Geronimo, you're saying that every single
bit of
will be identical except for some stupid plumbing in the web
plans? So
you must release a Geronimo+Tomcat version of the application and a
Geronimo+Jetty version of the application? Say it ain't so!
I'll grant that it's possible to construct an application that
works properly in only one container or the other. But I really
object to
crafting our whole configuration strategy around that case, which I
expect
to be very rare. I think it's going to be much more common that a
plan is
totally portable, or totally portable with a couple of container-
specific
tweaks for both containers that don't cause the app to fail if not
deployed in its preferred container. I'd rather make that the
baseline,
and allow a generic plan and a generic plan with extensions for 0-N
web
containers.
Aaron
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, David Jencks wrote:
After talking this issue over with Jeremy a bit and thinking about it
some more I don't think that the generic multi-container schema is a
good idea. I think the deployment system should be based on
namespace determines builder
and that we should not do anything that will make this difficult
in the
future.
If the packaging plugin was working, we could, for each app (such as
the console) that needs to run on both containers, generate a
configuration for each container. Then you could run either one,
without rebuilding geronimo or the application config.
I'm going to work on a proposal for schemas that would help keep the
configs for different containers as similar as possible.
Meanwhile I've committed the "any" solution as I think it is
considerably better than what we have now. One problem with this is
that most tomcat configurations will not in fact be portable: if they
contain tomcat realm or tomcat valve gbeans, the config just plain
won't deploy under jetty. It might not be so easy, but I'm sure
there
are equivalent ways to get in trouble using jetty.
Until we actually have the packaging plugin working, I suggest we
have
the tomcat and jetty builders munge a generic namespace to their
specific namespace, so that completely generic plans will still
deploy
on both.
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 22, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
-----Original Message-----
The first would result in a configuration that could run on
any web container, the last two would produce configurations
that would run on a specific web container. Applications
would typically use the first form unless they needed
container-specific functionality (which would also mean that
they needed that specific container at runtime).
I included the namespace qualifiers for clarity. I believe
that suitable use of schema imports would mean that they
could be removed simplifying the XML form used by users. It
may be harder for us to implement, but I think ease-of-use is
more important here than ease-of-implementation.
--
Jeremy
Everything you proposed is fine with me except for forcing the
namespace for
one container. I think we should have a universal web plan that
will
be
accepted under both containers. So I would ask that we allow the
generic
file to be allowed to include both a jetty and tomcat name space.
This will
make our applications, like the console and debugtool to have 1
geronimo-web.xml per app. IMHO this is a much simpler way to manage
the
apps that must run under both containers. I believe this is how DJ
implemented it.
Jeff
