On Dec 20, 2005, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
We couldn't call that J2EE then...
I'm not sure how much this could be an issue. Even with the current
set of configurations, with the planned installer changes, we will be
able to construct a server with no web server, which is also not J2EE
compliant. Anyone can do this today with 5 minutes to set up an
alternative assemblies server. I certainly want it to be easy to set
up a server with no deployment capabilities.
Personally my view is that if we can construct a server using the
same pieces as are used in a full J2EE server we will not be stepping
on anyones toes.
david jencks
On Dec 19, 2005, at 8:41 PM, 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 <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
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
