thanks!
Not that I know much about this, but your design looks fine to me. I
might suggest warning the user somehow if there is more than one
WebManager so they know they are missing half the picture and can take
steps to turn off the other container. I agree supporting multiple
simultaneous web managers is a very low priority (if indeed > 0).
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 9, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Can I ask that we move this thread back to its intended purpose (the
proposal of a design for the web console to display either Tomcat or
Jetty web logs ... )?
It looks like we're on the verge of branching off into more detailed
discussion on how to build the Geronimo distributions. I think this
is all very important and I'd like to continue the discussion but I
really would also like some input on the design that I proposed.
David Jencks wrote:
I've explained what is currently implemented. I'm willing to make it
so selecting jetty or tomcat does not start the other configuration,
but where both configurations are present. If anyone wants to build
separate jetty and tomcat distributions that are actually missing the
other container, for m5, I will not stand in their way so long as
they keep the tck running at least as smoothly as it is now, but I do
not have the time or interest to put into it. I have no expectations
that the console will do anything in particular in M5. I do wonder
how you determine which container is running.
I will say that I think that the current assembly module approach to
building geronimo distributions is really bad and that something
based on the packaging and assembly plugins should be much more
maintainable. I am aware that this opinion is shall we say
controversial.
Using the same module to build two unrelated versions of the geronimo
distribution definitely violates the maven philosophy, and I suggest
if anyone wants to build separate distributions that they do so in
two separate modules.
On Sep 9, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I really believe that choice is a bad thing.
umm, really? why aren't we using jboss? or jonas?
I don't believe we should offer 2 options to a user. How are
they supposed to decide? How are we supposed to guide them?
So we should just drop support for jetty or tomcat completely? Which
one?
I'll grant you that there may (*may*) be some possible reason
for
a very advanced user to want to run 2 different web containers. I
really
believe this should be an advanced manual process (e.g. download
Tomcat
build, then deploy Jetty plan). I really really really don't want
to
encumber every user with both Jetty and Tomcat in order to support
this
dual-container feature.
We have been including all the jar files for both jetty and tomcat
for some time. Adding the configurations to run them is a tiny step
compared to this. I think if we remove one of the configurations we
need to remove the jar files that are only used with it.
+1
Gratuitous feature creep is evil and this particular feature
violates the "principle of least astonishment".
From my point of view, we are finally seeing some partial benefits
from being able to use some of the fundamental architectural features
of geronimo. I don't really care how we present the choice of
container to the user in M5 so long as it doesn't complicate the
build or running the tck. I've taken the approach that seems to me
to most clearly express geronimo principles and provides (in my
opinion) the simplest build and test path. I don't think that the
possible benefits of providing two builds that each include only one
container outweigh the additional project management complexity
involved.
thanks
david jencks
--
Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot
