Agreed. Aside from the UI aspect, managing a server from within the
server process is limited by definition. Ideally there should be a
rich client and some kind of server-side daemon that can bounce the
server process and provide access to configuration when the server is
down.
One other advantage would be an ability to manage multiple instances
of Geronimo from the single console. From the recent experience the
lack of this capability is the single biggest concern in migrating to
Geronimo from commercial app servers.
Andrus
On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:30 AM, Heinz Drews 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
>
