So hopefully this will make sense... :)
In the two proposal notes I sent, the discussion is around the 3
concepts in WTP, "runtimes", "servers", and "facets" and what we can
do to improve the definition, design and interaction between the
frameworks that these concepts represent. So for those not familiar
with WTP, let me start by describing these concepts from a "users
perspective".
RUNTIMES & SERVERS
----------------
So currently WTP has a notion of defining a "runtime" and defining a
"server". So for a user wanting to create a j2ee app using WTP and
deploy it to geronimo the user must perform currently two distinct
tasks. (1) Is to define a Geronimo runtime using a wizard which asks
the location of the runtime which you would point to a geronimo
installation. During project creation you would choose this newly
defined runtime and what this essentially does is configures the
project to add a JRE and a "runtime classpath container" which
contains all of the geronimo spec jars + other G jars. This means
that this project is "targeted" to be deployed to geronimo.
Now in order to deploy that application, the user currently has to
perform a second task, and that is to define and point to the actual
server instance. You may immediatly ask yourself, didn't I just do
that by defining the runtime?
This is currently confusing to users, as the note below indicates.
Not only are the definition of the terms confusing in discussions as
many times there are used interchangably, but from a users
perspective they need to manage in the UI both the list of servers
and runtimes and the mapping between the two. And most of all what
is confusing in the above case, both the runtime and the server are
pointing to the same thing! This usability needs to change. So one
of the proposals is for these two to be merged togather, with all
server instances being runtimes, but not vise versa. Runtimes may or
may not represent a server instance. (Multiple server instances may
have unique configuration/launching data in distinct location but
share the same runtime jars. For example WebSphere has a concept of
profiles).
So with that re-read below and hopefully the note will make more sense.
FACETS
------
Facets are basically a unit of function that can be applied and
removed to a given WTP project. For example, if a user is wanting to
create a "Web Project" the "web facet" is selected and this creates
the project directory structure specific for a web project, web.xml,
etc.... So how do facets relate to geronimo runtimes and servers?
Since G is headed toward a model where a user can produce a custom
server image (i.e web container only, no j2ee, etc...) each
distribution may be different. So after defining a runtime by
pointing to this installation, some facets may or not be applicable
to add on a project. So from a tooling perspective we should be able
to ask...Given this "runtime" what kind of capabilties do I have?
What kind of projects can I create?
Now the second use case is that a user may not be interested in
deploying his app yet and only concerned is developing a project that
would be supported geronimo. So they may or may not have a local
geronimo install image. So with our integration and use of maven, we
should be able to take a more appcentric approach in the tools as
well. So the user should be able to simply choose the ejb project
creation wizard, select geronimo, and we should be able to
dynamically generate the minimum runtime for that project by pulling
in the necessary jars from their local install or from a maven repo.
I hope that helps.
- sachin
On Mar 1, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Sachin, can you translate this from eclipse speak to geronimo speak?
-dain
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
Please respond with any comments or concerns you have with this
second proposal as it will have a direct affect on G tooling.
- sachin
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 1, 2006 4:02:33 PM EST
To: "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<[email protected]>
Subject: [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server Runtime and Server
Instance
Reply-To: "General discussion of project-wide or architectural
issues." <[email protected]>
Currently the server tools framework has a separate notion of
runtime and a server. Typically, the runtime is supposed to
represent the server install location, while server instance
supposed to represent an actual runnable server configuration.
The runtime then functions almost like a factory for server
instances. You can have any number (including zero) of server
instances associated with a runtime. While that separation can be
a good thing in some situations, it’s has turned out to be in a
problem in others. In particular:
The runtime is supposed to be a full description of the server,
including its capabilities (which facets are supported). While
that is true in some cases, often the actual server configuration
is necessary in order to get the complete understanding of what’s
supported. See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?
id=111545 for one example of this.
Having to create and maintain separate lists of runtimes and
servers has shown to be confusing for users. Extra steps are
necessary. The user has to know about the preferences page for
managing runtimes and the servers view for managing servers.
Often there is confusion as to which one you are talking about.
People use terms server and runtime interchangeably, etc.
Some runtimes (such as Tomcat) do not have additional server
configuration, in which case the extra step of creating a server
from a runtime is very unnecessary.
I’d like to propose that the server runtime and server instance
be merged into one. I believe we can do that without detriment to
the use cases that gave rise to the separation. We can do that by
allowing a runtime to also (optionally) be a server. That is, all
servers would be runtimes, but not all runtimes would be servers.
When creating a runtime via the new runtime wizard, the runtime
provider will have full flexibility in determining whether the
runtime that’s created is a server or not. Some runtime providers
(such as Tomcat) may always create servers. Others, such
WebLogic, may do that optionally based on user’s input. For
instance, if the user specifies just the WebLogic install
location, then the created runtime would not be a server, but if
the user also provides the domain configuration directory, then
the runtime becomes a startable server. A project can be targeted
to either one for development, but only the latter one can be
used to run/debug the app. This approach places a lot of
flexibility in the hands of the runtime providers. It’s
conceivable that some may even allow a runtime that’s not a
server to be “converted” into a server by specifying additional
information.
The users would manage the list of runtimes via a new Runtimes
workbench view. The view would be extensible, allowing the server
tools framework to plug in and mark those runtimes that are
servers with decorations and additional actions, such as start,
stop, and status monitoring. This would replace the dedicated
Servers view.
At the api level, IRuntime would be adaptable to IServer (as
applicable) and IServer would be adaptable to IRuntime (always).
The server tools would maintain the markers that indicate which
runtimes are servers and surface this via api for use by the
runtime providers. This would not be surfaced to the end user via
UI.
So how would we handle use cases that drove to the separation of
the runtime and the server?
I want to just write code. I haven’t created a server and I don’t
want to create one. I will worry about running/debugging later.
The above proposal leaves this in the hands of runtime providers.
If creating a server instance configuration is not trivial, the
new runtime wizard should let the user opt out of that. The end
result would be an un-runnable runtime that the user can still
develop against.
I don’t want to have to specify the location of my server install
every time I create a new server instance. This can easily be
handled in the runtime creation wizards by remembering the prior
selections in an editable combo box.
Thoughts?
- Konstantin
____________________________________________________________________
___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments,
may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you
are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in
error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
