I would assert that most web apps are simple and do not require
complex container specific configuration, so a common plan is the
more desirable choice. In the rare places where tomcat and jetty
differ, we allow a name space designated escape to the container
specific elements.
Lets make the commons stuff (80%) simple and have an escape system
for the complex (20%) installations.
-dain
On Aug 22, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
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.
I would assert that most applications will be targeted at one
environment or another. Most enterprise users will pick one
platform and develop for that, most ISVs will pick one platform and
distribute for that. In either case the overhead of testing all
possible combinations will prove too expensive.
Let's face reality: Geronimo+Tomcat and Geronimo+Jetty *are*
different products - they even require separate certification.
Anyone distributing an application is either going to ship the one
they work with, or ship pre-tested deployment plans for both (just
like they ship plans for JBoss, WebLogic or WebSphere).
The choice of web container is actually non-representative of the
general case as there is relatively little web-container specific
configuration. When you look at EJB configuration etc. there is
much more container specific information needed - are we going to
define one plan for all EJB containers? Say it ain't so!
This experiment with common web container configuration has shown
that implementations *are* different, even down to basic concepts
like what a "host" is. And that's just with two sample points, what
about others?
--
Jeremy
