I'm not keen on the shared libs concept either, but people are
familar with the feature from Tomcat.
I think we would get tons of emails from confused users if this
feature is not on by default. When it comes to exporting
configurations, we could warn users that the application can see
shared libraries and they will have to install they by hand on the
target server. Alternatively, we could allow the user to select the
shared libs to include in the export, and then we we do an import ask
the user if they want the jars added to the shared libs, or kept
private.
I think we should start with the first option as it is the easiest
and hopefully someone will implement the second.
-dain
On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I'm not so keen on the shared libs, because then we don't know what
the dependencies are and it won't be easy to export a configuration
with all the necessary metadata. It might be possible to include a
flag in the deployment plan saying "enable shared libs" and then if
that's set we can refuse to export the configuration or set a special
flag saying that the configuration has unknown dependencies. But
needing to enable the shared libs would make them a little harder to
use. I'm not sure what to think.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 4/5/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One new feature I'm working on for 1.1 is support for tomcat style
shared libs. This creates a shared class loader visible to all j2ee
applications which contains shared/lib/*.jar and shared/classes/ to
the class loader.
Will this address your issues?
-dain
On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
I have a situation where I need to make several web modules
dependent upon a large number of jars. I'd like to add the jars to
the Geronimo repo and add the dependencies into the plans for the
web modules. However, most of the jars don't follow the maven
naming convention because the names don't include a version (and
I'd rather not rename all the jars).
I know that there are changes being included in 1.1 to make the
version in a reference optional. However, I doubt that it is
possible to reference a jar in the repo that doesn't contain any
version. Just thought I should ask in case it really is possible.
I could see where this might be something users would like when
they have picked up jars from various places which may or may not
contain a version in the jar name.
If it *is* possible to have a non-versioned jar in the repo ... how
do we differentiate in geronimo 1.1 between a dependency on a non-
versioned jar versus a dependency on the latest version of a jar
(in case both are present).
Thanks for the help,
Joe
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn at earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he
cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
