You raise an excellent point, which is that all that functionality in the console doesn't do much good if the server won't start. I also really like your idea that the console should be able to run in a server with a minimalistic configuration. To me this is analogous to booting an operating system in recovery mode so you can make repairs using the console before rebooting in normal mode. I think this could be accomplished by providing a specialized config, say var/config/minimal-config.xml, that would get loaded if you passed a special flag to geronimo.sh.
The console is not currently implemented in such a way that would allow this because it uses Geronimo's dependency system to gain the level of access it needs to administer a module. e.g. its deployment plan has a dependency against geronimo-activemq-gbean so that it can manage ActiveMQ. As a result ActiveMQ needs to be running before the console can start But with all the excitement around Little G and modularizing the server via plugins we've been talking about changing this so that the console can manage incremental bits of function. As part of that effort I think that we definitely need to support the use case you have brought to our attention -- recovery mode. Best wishes, Paul On 9/19/06, Heinz Drews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris, I agree that with Ajax sufficient functionality can be provided in a webapp. My primary argument for a rich client would be as I have said before that a webapp requires a running server. And what should be done if there are problems in the configuration which prevents that the server starts? The console webapp should at least run in a seperate server with minimalistic configuration. Something which I would prefer anyhow instead of the current situation in G. Heinz On 9/19/06, Christopher M. Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this idea can be explored but we should give the current > initiative to include Ajax functionality to the console a shot first. > There's no doubt that rich clients have their advantages over web apps > (performance and sophisticated widgets to name a few) but I think we > have a potential in Ajax to close this gap. It would be nice to get more > comments on this. What do others think? > > > Jason Dillon wrote: > > Anyone have any thoughts on using Swing for the console... instead of > > a webapp (which are kinda evil IMO)... and then using webstart to > > serve it? Maybe using Netbeans (or that license not ASL friendly)? > > I've done some work with NB before at it would be very easy to create > > a rich user experience... and its easy to drop in new modules to > > support different aspects of administration and monitoring. > > > > I dunno.. just a thought... > > > > --jason > > > >
