David Jencks wrote:
On Oct 11, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Quite frankly, I'm not sure I see the value of having multiple web
containers simultaneously active within geronimo. Has anyone heard of
a use case or user that is asking for this support?
I don't think there is any practical use for it outside of experimenting
with both web containers at once. It also makes running the tck much
easier.
IMHO, I suspect the vast majority of users will choose a single web
container (at build or install time) and stick with it. If future
requirements dictate a switch to a different container, then laying
down a new installation doesn't seem unreasonable. In fact, Geronimo
doesn't currently even support incremental maintenance. I would think
the use case for non-destructive upgrade would be much more prevalent
than changing internal components on the fly.
While simultaneous active web containers would be a technical feat,
I'm really not sure the overhead and added confusion to users are
worth the payoff.. My $.02
I prefer to keep this as standard at this point to ensure that our
architecture remains clean enough to support it. I look forward to the
installer being sophisticated enough to be able to include the correct
components for only one web container. At the moment, it includes all
components and only starts selected ones.
If there is no immediate practical use for it outside of TCK testing,
wouldn't it be beneficial to the users (who are hopefully flocking to
the newly certified J2EE server :>) ) if the default behavior was more
inline with their expectations rather than confuse them with behavior
that is somewhat confusing and that they will likely not be leveraging?
The changes to the installer seem like a reasonable plan. How about
users that download the binary zip/tar images? Shouldn't they also have
a simple default way to utilize only one web container. It seems this
is what most users would want. It appears that the current M5 default
behavior is starting both web containers..
Thanks
thanks
david jencks
Thanks
Dave
Joe Bohn wrote:
I know I keep beating on this but IMO this is another problem of the
multiple container configuration and single image delivery. It would
be equally problematic to attempt to start both the tomcat & jetty
console or welcome configurations simultaneously even in just a
single container configuration. I think we will have problems like
this until we come to the point where we deliver two images that
include only the peripheral configurations that are applicable to the
particular image (one for tomcat and one for jetty).
I'm willing to eat my words if I hear a proposal on how we can avoid
problems like these. I just don't see a clear solution to problems
with our current approach unless we get a lot more sophisticated with
conversion capability (and even then I think the user will be
confused when s/he sees multiple configurations for the same
applications even if they all work).
Joe
anita kulshreshtha wrote:
I have built M5 from the source. I am running the
default configuration (Jetty and Tomcat). I start The
following configurations :
org/apache/geronimo/applications/Welcome/Tomcat and
org/apache/geronimo/Console/Tomcat Both theses configurations
get started on port
8080. Even though Tomcat is running on port 8090: Before I
investigate further, is this a known
problem?
Thanks
Anita
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC
Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
