On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:49 AM, 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?
yes, please do.
Updating the tomcat config ports to the "normal" expected values is a
really good idea anyway. Anyone crazy enough (that would be me) to
want to run 2 web servers in the same g instance can deal with
setting the ports in the config.xml
thanks
david jencks
Joe
