That's already possible. I had it working earlier, but we need to recreate the metadata file for it that lists the modules to add and the modules to remove.
If you get a chance, could you look at project.xml for the J2EE assemblies vs. the minimal assemblies and make a list of all the Geronimo modules in the two? Such as: module J2EE minimal system yes yes unavailable-webservices-deployer no yes ... We can use a list like that to create the plugin metadata to upgrade minimal to full J2EE. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would this also enable the scenario of someone wanting to upgrade a minimal-tomcat-server with the unavailable-webservices-deployer to include the Axis and Axis-builder modules? -Donald Aaron Mulder wrote: > FYI, I plan to address > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1873 as soon as possible > in 1.1.1. I'd like plugins to be able to define new deployment unit > formats (e.g. JBI service assemblies, a Spring deployment unit, a > Quartz job as a deployment unit, or a Jasper report as a deployment > unit). > > Any of those will probably need a geronimo-XYZ.xml deployment plan, to > supply a module ID and dependencies if nothing else. And currently, > the deploy tool doesn't know how to crack open an arbitrary deployment > unit and figure out its module ID, which is necessary to support > redeployment when the plan is embedded in the archive (it has to know > what existing module(s) to replace). > > There are two possible solutions: one is to stop using JSR-88 for > deployment and just pass the archive to the server and let it do its > thing; the other is to let each deployer indicate the name of its > deployment plan (when the plan is packed in the module). I'd lean > toward the second approach for 1.1.1, as it's a fairly trivial change. > > A related question is whether we should let you pack non-J2EE > deployment units in an EAR. That is, if we define a JasperReports > report deployment unit, should your EAR be able to contain a WAR, an > EJB JAR, and 2 reports? I would think so, though we may choose to > implement a wrapper that would hold the EAR and the 2 reports instead. > I'm not sure how extensive a change this might require -- we seem to > have some special handling for classpaths for modules within an EAR, > and I don't know where that happens and what's likely to break. > > If we do nothing, the alternative is that you'd only be able to > redeploy new types of modules if you pass either the module ID or the > plan on the command line along with the archive (no packing plan in > archive), and if you had a J2EE app and a handful of other modules > that all work together, you would still have to deploy/redeploy them > all individually. > > Thanks, > Aaron > >
