Before we start working on documentation, I'd like to confirm what I understood so far is correct.
We have 2 different scenarios: (1) users are going to develop new applications but they are used to the tomcat way; (2) users have existing application running on Tomcat, we'd like to provide a seamless way migrating to Geronimo. For (1), We support server.xml now because we want users to use Geronimo in the same way they used to be as in Tomcat, such as connector configuration, security realm, log configuration, valve and deploy method as well; in this case, Geronimo will take care of users' applications and provide run-time environment. Anyway, we will recommend users to adopt GBean usage for Web container configuration instead of using server.xml, which we can demostrate the up-sides of Geronimo architecture using app-per-port sample; As for (2), users can simply copy their server.xml into /var/catalina by overwriting the one in Geronimo, and for example, user need to copy the applications to /var/catalina/web-apps/. There would be nothing different from the old days. Geronimo will provide run-time enviornment. In either scenario, users' apps will be untouched and cann't be used as geronimo plugin because they are still tomcat-specific. Anything incorrect, please hop in. thanks Jeff C On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:50 AM, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>wrote: > IMO our way of configuring the tomcat server using server.xml is working > fine and the main remaining bits are really documentation. Since I am > terrible at documentation I hope others will take it upon themselves to help > with it :-) > > I'd like to see > > -- a list of stuff that doesn't work in geronimo. My recollection is that > the main things that don't work are configuring jndi (such as deploying > datasources) and realms (this might actually work, I'm not sure). > > -- at least one sample of how to use it. I think a good starting point > would the the app-per-port sample that shows how to have 2 web apps each > exposed on a different port. This requires setting up 2 entire tomcat > servers and I think would be a nice example of the simplicity of the > server.xml configuration compared with the gbeans we used up till now. I > think I'd consider deploying the server.xml in a plugin that completely > replaces the existing tomcat plugin. > > thoughts? > > many thanks > david jencks >
