Matt Hogstrom wrote:
How about for milestones and versions we agree that the delivery
mechanism is teh installer and it will allow the user to choose the web
container of their choice and only install the required components for
that configuration. This provides a nice and neat package for users and
is consumable. We could also provide a single tarball / unzip type of
option that is just like the daily builds and we make the assumption
that people that choose this option understand that they want this
configuration and will work within it.
So, to sum up, for 1.0 we have 2 deliver mechanisms: the installers and
a single tarball download.
I like the idea of having an installer that allows for selection of the
web container (assuming it only lays down the applications and
configurations associated with that webcontainer).
I suspect that many projects/products/ISVs that embed a milestone or
version (v1.0) of Geronimo will want the simple, quick installation
behavior of the tarball installation. They can easily pre-set their
configuration to jetty or geronimo. However, I believe the presence of
the unselected webcontainer's applications and configurations in the
file system and their visibility in web console will still create
confusion with their end users.
IMHO, the unnecessary applications and configurations are the main
problem..
If the installer (at install time) can create an image that does not
contain the other web containers apps and config and the resulting image
can then be tar'd up and embedded by other projects/products/ISVs then
this also seems like an acceptable alternative.
My $.02
-Dave-
