I agree with this approach for V1 if we can keep the user's view
restricted to just the container or containers that are installed and
give no hint of the container that is not installed.
However, I'm not sure of the longevity of such an implementation beyond
V1. If we really intend to support multiple containers (where multiple
is > 2) then to do it right thing we would need to do something more
dynamic than just listing all of elements and actions under just 2
categories (as you mentioned in your response). So the structure might
look more like this:
Tomcat A
- HTTP
- HTTPS
- AJP
Tomcat B
- HTTP
- HTTPS
- AJP
Jetty A
- HTTP
- HTTPS
- AJP
Hot New Container(HNC) A
- HTTP
- HTTPS
- AJP
Create new Tomcat connectors: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP for Tomcat A
Create new Tomcat connectors: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP for Tomcat B
Create new Jetty connectors: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP for Jetty A
Create new HNC connectors: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP for HNC A
Of course there's multiple different ways to provide the UI (including
just one set of commands and letting the user pick the target) ... but
you get the idea.
We could even choose to make the structure less tightly coupled with
similar components and more integrated with the capability being
delivered by the individual component. That would ensure extensibility
and give the provider of the component a mechanism to differentiate
itself from a similar component. This would be at the expense of a
single management view for all elements of the same type. Each approach
has its pro's and con's.
Finally, I think that this is an issue that affects more than just web
containers and their management. The Web Container is just the current
example of this issue. I think we need to build a structure that can
handle multiple instances of any component that Geronimo can bundle in
an install image if we are truly building a Geronimo Admin Console and
not a Geronimo J2EE Admin Console. Of course this is all way past V1
... it's just something we should keep in mind as we address the
multiple container situation now.
Joe
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I think for 1.0, we'd like to support multiple web containers in the
console, for example, with a simple hierarchy in the connector list
screen:
Tomcat
- HTTP
- HTTPS
- AJP
Jetty
- HTTP
- HTTPS
- AJP
Create new Tomcat connector: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP
Create new Jetty connector: HTTP, HTTPS, AJP
Then if you only have one, it would show only half the links. We
should have the capability to look up an array of WebManager objects
and then fetch the associated containers and connectors from each, we
just have to implement the display for that. And perhaps enhance the
WebConnector to return a product name so we can create a view like the
above without hardcoding checks based on class names or anything.
This should not be super-difficult, we just need to tweak the data
passed from the portlet to the JSPs and update the JSPs to render
appropriately.
There has been talk about some day making the console fully generic,
such that GBeans have associated portlets and the console is built
dynamically based on the content of the server. But that needs much
more thought and is waaay not in scope for 1.0.
Aaron
On 11/14/05, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah ... that's the heart of the issue. Based upon the current console
capability, it has primary been a J2EE application server console. From
what I can tell that's primarily been Geronimo's focus as well. All of
the J2EE application servers I've seen have one web container to manage
and host all of the web applications, one ejb container, etc... and I
think this is what the user will expect if we call ourselves a J2EE
application server. This may or may not be in line with what we want
... but in my opinion (at least for the console) this is the current
state of affairs and what I think our users will expect.
On the other hand, if this console is to be a general purpose Geronimo
(ie. G-Bean management) console then I think the organization and the
functionality would be very different. We would want the console to
focus on the management of GBeans (no matter what they contained). We
could build a special configuration or set of configurations to be used
as an J2EE Application Server with it's own console (in addition to the
Geronimo console). Or, we could make the Geronimo console general
purpose enough such that it could be easily extended with management
capability for any hosted component. If that's the case we might have a
"Tomcat Application view" and a "Jetty Application view" rather than
simply an "Application view". We would also ensure that the console
could not only host multiple web containers, but also multiple EJB
containers, portlet containers, databases, etc... There would be no
structure or limit on the types and variety of components.
I may be speaking heresy here ... but I'm just struggling myself with
understanding what we are trying to build and how the console can best
provide management assistance for the end user of Geronimo.
I'm ready for the flaming arrows now and to have my head shaped
appropriately .... that will be for the good as well. :-) I want to be
on the same page with everybody else but I'm not sure what that page is.
Joe
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
Is the console managing Gernonimo or Jetty? I am under the impression
that it is managing Geronimo as such and not any web container. Correct
me if I am wrong.
I do not know if it this Connector portlet improvement is ahead of its
time. I came across some "//todo: handle multiple" comments (against
WebManagers and WebContiners within) in Connector portlet and went ahead
to address those. If the console is for Geronimo, then this improvement
is definitely not ahead of its time.
-Vamsi
On 11/11/05, *Joe Bohn* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Is this patch adding the ability to add/display tomcat web connectors
from a Web Console that is managing Jetty? If so, then I'm not sure we
want to add this capability just yet. The entire console needs to be
reworked if we decide to support multiple containers simultaneously from
a single console.
We will probably want this at some point in time so we should not lose
it. But I'm concerned that adding it now might just cause confusion
for
the user. It would be one of the only portlets addressing management of
more than one container. Most other portlets that work with the web
container only interact with the container that is hosting the console
application itself.
Also, nobody has come up with a scenario where a user would want to run
two web containers. If we do include this then we should at least
ensure that the option to add tomcat connectors is not present for a
jetty only configuration and vice-versa (not sure if the patch does
this).
Nice work but it might be a little ahead of its time.
Joe
Vamsavardhana Reddy (JIRA) wrote:
> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1152?page=all ]
>
> Vamsavardhana Reddy updated GERONIMO-1152:
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Attachment: connector-moreformbuttons.patch
>
> connector-moreformbuttons.patch: As suggested by Matt, I have
added "Reset", "Clear" and "Cancel" buttons to the forms for editing
HTTP and HTTPS configurations.
>
>
>>Connector portlet does not display all WebConnectors
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Key: GERONIMO-1152
>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1152
>> Project: Geronimo
>> Type: Bug
>> Components: console
>> Versions: 1.0-M5
>> Environment: Win XP, Sun JDK 1.4.2_08
>> Reporter: Vamsavardhana Reddy
>> Attachments: connector-moreformbuttons.patch,
connector-withdeleteconfirmation.patch , connector.patch
>>
>>Under WebServer management page, Connector portlet displays only
jetty web connectors and provides links to add only jetty
connectors. It does not display tomcat web connectors nor does it
provide links to add tomcat connectors.
>
>
--
Joe Bohn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot
--
Joe Bohn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot
--
Joe Bohn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot
