Agreed. I was a just a little predisposed to an answer given the particular project I'm undertaking.
On Monday 19 December 2005 20:41, Aaron Mulder wrote: > In truth, I think we can go further in allowing for a "mini-Geronimo". > For example, right now IIRC the core J2EE configuration contains > OpenEJB, and we could probably break out OpenEJB into a separate > configuration to let you easily configure a server without it. I > think I've been convinced that more/smaller configurations is the way > to go, though we haven't figured out for sure how granular they should > get. > > Thanks, > Aaron > > On 12/19/05, Jan Bartel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Faisal, > > > > You can use either standalone Tomcat or Jetty containers to give > > you web container plus a couple of j2ee frills like jndi, resource > > mapping etc etc. > > > > However, if you want to keep within the geronimo idiom, then Erik's > > answer re cut-down installation is the way to go. > > > > regards > > Jan > > > > Wade Chandler wrote: > > > --- Faisal Akeel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>If you look at the top reason that FireFox more > > >>preferred over Mozilla > > >>suite, this is because its small size and limited > > >>focus feature. > > >>So, Is there way to customize Geronimo to a simple > > >>web container (jetty) and > > >>small foot print database (derby) only, instead of > > >>big J2EE application and > > >>if it possible can anyone provide guide or a demo > > >>example on the wiki web > > >>site. > > >>Some people like mini cooper over big SUV car. > > > > > > That's what Tomcat is for. > > > > > > Wade -- Regards, Erik
