David Jencks wrote:
On Oct 12, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Oct 11, 2005, at 7:41 PM, Dave Colasurdo wrote:
2) Have a separate binary image for both the Jetty and Tomcat
webcontainers. I'm not suggesting biting off the whole task of
revising the assembly process but rather just merely having two
binaries each with a separate set of config files (config.xml,
config.list). This could even be a post-build step done on the
common image. This isn't very technically interesting but clearly
communicates to users that there are two separate environments and
they select the download that they want. Of course, this goes away
if/when the assembly revision is complete.
+1 this is a reasonable compromise.
OK, one more idea for the list...
I'm into testing on making config.xml serve as both the attribute store
and the persistent configuration list. When this works, I think it
would be useful to have a command line parameter that sets the
location/name of the config.xml file to use (maybe a system property).
Then we could choose the configuration on the command line
java -jar bin/server.jar -Dgeronimo.configuration=geronimo-jetty.xml
Scripts could remove the need to know the file name :-)
./geronimo-jetty
Would this be adequate and remove the need for separate distributions?
Would this also solve the problem of there being invalid configurations
included in the runtime as I mentioned earlier (ex. the jetty/console
and jetty/welcome pre-deployed configurations being included in a tomcat
only configuration)?
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
