Yes...commit it...this is a great foundation for SOA and ESBs (no web container needed).
Joe Bohn wrote: > > I've done some work on a new assembly that I've nicknamed "Micro-G" (I > know .. not very creative). The name that I'm using under > geronimo/assemblies is "geronimo-framework". This is intended to be a > new foundational assembly from which any customized Geronimo assembly > could be built by installing plugins we would provide (starting with > tomcat and jetty plugins). > > Hopefully this could help us eliminate the need to provide so many > canned configurations with each release. I'm pretty sure we would > probably still want to provide at least one full j2ee server > configuration that we certified against, but we could potentially drop > the little-G assemblies and hopefully avoid additional future assemblies > based upon different combinations of components in the works. > > So far, I've been doing this on my local image. I would like to get > this code (incomplete as it currently is) checked into trunk to better > manage the changes and to share the effort. Is this considered a > "controversial change"? Should I first provide a patch as it currently > stands so that folks can comment on it prior to a commit(ala RTC)? > > I'm inclined to just commit the code since it is relatively self > contained at the moment, safe, and can be easily reverted. I think the > only controversial change thus far might be that I updated the default > port selections on the tomcat configuration so that if you install a > tomcat plugin on this framework assembly you will end up with the same > port configurations currently available on our existing tomcat > distributions. Of course, this means that the default ports are no > longer conducive to running two web servers in the same configuration. > > Should I go ahead and commit this new assembly and config updates? > > Joe
