The lib directory might also need read/write, as it contains the endorsed folder, for the bin directory, there might also be changes, as there is a setjavaenv script files which are used to add system properties by end users. Not sure I understand correctly, do you mean to grant read-only permission to those folders ?
2011/9/21 Rex Wang <[email protected]> > If we want to continue maintain such complexity in 3.0? Hard drive is > pretty cheap nowadays. > > And I think currently the part that looks a little bit wasting space is > karaf "copy" the artifacts from repository to cache when start.. > > -Rex > > > 2011/9/21 Forrest Xia <[email protected]> > >> This idea is like the multiple instances feature we had in 2.1 branch, but >> not supported in trunk now. >> >> Geronimo 2.1.x support copying "var" folder to add more instances with a >> same installation, but G trunk code does not support that feature now. >> >> Do we have a user scenario to mandate that feature for 3.x? >> >> Regards, >> Forrest >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Jarek Gawor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> In Geronimo binary install which directories do we consider read-only >>> vs. write/read? The idea is that the read-only directories could be >>> shared among multiple installations to save some space and reduce >>> maintenance. >>> >>> Here's what I identified so far: >>> >>> read-only: >>> - bin >>> - jsr88 >>> - schema >>> - lib >>> >>> read/write: >>> - deploy >>> - hotbundles >>> - etc >>> - var >>> >>> The repository/ directory is a little weird because parts of it could >>> be considered read-only and some write. I wonder if maybe we should >>> have separate repository directories one for Geronimo bundles and >>> another one for applications. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jarek >>> >> >> > > > -- > Lei Wang (Rex) > rwonly AT apache.org > -- Ivan
