If footprint with both containers is not a problem, then I like your "Minimum" scenario with a slight twist. The user has the option to choose. But if he doesn't (want to) choose, we choose one by default.
This default chosen one is what we think a majority of users use. This will help in the rapid out-of-the-box installation of G. This will also help those users who don't know/care about the containers. But the few who'd prefer a different container can always specify their choice. This is an all-inclusive option.
There should also be documentation on how they can switch to the other container.
Now all this looks good provided footprint is not a problem when both the containers are installed.
Cheers
Prasad.
On 11/4/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With Geronimo 1.0 quickly approaching, I think we should talk about
how we would like to package the binaries for release. This has
downstream impact on tck testing, and since I'm working on the TCK
build right now, I'd like to know what we are going to need to test.
So to get the discussion going, this is what I think would be ideal
and what we need at the minimum:
Ideal:
geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
Only the resources for the web server they choose are installed.
geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a Tomcat only version of
Geronimo with no Jetty resources.
geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a Jetty only version of
Geronimo with no unnecessary Tomcat resources.
Minimum:
geronimo-installer: The user can choose between Tomcat and Jetty.
Resources are installed for both, and the installer just sets the
chosen web server to boot by default.
geronimo-tomcat.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Tomcat will start by default.
geronimo-jetty.(zip | tgz): Contains a full image of Geronimo with
both Tomcat and Jetty resources, but only Jetty will start by default.
What do you think?
-dain
