I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the
physical location of the plugin server.
We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is
to DEPLOY.
For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to
be good for installing some
things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move
everything to plugins, then I
think it is a bad move.
We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo. We
could separate into groups such
as (I am intentionally not including resources):
1. Geronimo modules
2. Sample applications
3. User applications
4. Vendor applications
This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps
to express my point. Following
the order from the list:
Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as
plugins may be OK if these are
hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way
to distribute a patch/update
to the single server installation users (if you have many servers this
is not a viable solution).
We develop/integrate the modules and samples so we provide, as a
deployment alternative, the Apache
Geronimo plugins site. When fully documented, it ends up being a
working sample site for configuring
your own plugins site.
But it would not feel right if you need to install the LDAP module (to
give just an example) and you
have to go outside the ASF, a different server from where you
downloaded the Geronimo binary, to get
part of the Apache Geronimo standard functionality.
If not hosted at the ASF, how would we ensure server availability,
performance and maintenance?
In terms of user applications, I think it is very unlikely that this
will became the method of
choice for installing everyday applications. In a production
environment, it is very likely that
the command line tool will be the most popular alternative.
As for vendors applications, if you build your custom solution around
Apache Geronimo it is probably
that you will distribute it all in one package (Apache Geronimo
included). Just like with the
Geronimo modules example, plugins may be a good alternative for
distributing patches/updates, but we
wouldn't call them plugins anymore would we!?
In this case the vendor should choose to have their own plugins site
implementing the security (if
needed) to match the appropriate downloads depending on the licensing
and sensitivity of the plugins
to be installed.
Two final thoughts. First, I would really like to see and participate
in the discussions before
seeing the changes already implemented. Second and last, the whole
deployment strategy should be
revised, including the repository. Having too many options does not
make the things easier.
Cheers!
Hernan
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please,
> let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you
> describe your position?
>
> I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
> the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
> Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
> be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as
> possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the
> primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to
> offer our users the best of all available plugins.
>
> Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source
> code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by
> Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those
> builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However,
> the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the
> packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside
> the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins.
>
> And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons
> to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo
> features or distribution model.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are
>> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit
that
>> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
>> matter further.
>>
>> Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this
out.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The
>> > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
>> > wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites
>> > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by
>> default.
>> >
>> > -dain
>> >
>> > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com
site
>> >>>> as a
>> >>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>> page.
>> >>>> This was introduced in
>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I have a few questions:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>> >>>> haven't
>> >>>> been able to find much at all.
>> >>>
>> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and
>> discussions
>> >>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some
detail in
>> >>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of
>> describing
>> >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off
until it
>> >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup
with
>> >>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some
documentation on
>> >>> it later today.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
>> >> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
>> >>
>> >>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> >>>
>> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> >>>
>> >>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL
plugins,
>> >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central
site
>> >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
>> >>> open source and non-open source plugins.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion
>> and if
>> >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
>> >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be
appropriate. I
>> >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to
someone's
>> >> personal site. We need consensus on this.
>> >>
>> >>>> Where is the source for the site?
>> >>>
>> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
>> >>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you
just
>> >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin
has
>> >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
>> >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
>> >>> source is at Apache.
>> >>>
>> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
>> >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
>> >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who
want
>> >>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important
>> part
>> >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
>> >>
>> >> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass
muster
>> >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass
through
>> >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope
>> that the
>> >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
>> >> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone
else is
>> >> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus,
>> albeit
>> >> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which
>> this
>> >> has gone about is not community focused.
>> >>
>> >> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big
>> should go
>> >> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
>> >> implementing it.
>> >>
>> >> I would like to hear what others think about this.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >
>>
>>
>
