On 5/14/07, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/14/07, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > On 5/14/07, Anil Gangolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm in favor of an installer but I'd suggest keeping it separate from the
> >> webapp itself; I may not be grasping the rationale for putting it in the
> >> webapp.
> >
> > I'm still looking at options, but it seems the easiest situation for
> > the user would be a single WAR file that knows how to create
> > resources, create/upgrade tables and configure itself -- just as
> > Wordpress does. I'm not sure that is technically possible or feasible
> > given the fact that we want to support multiple app servers. I'm also
> > looking at the idea of a separate installer to at least do the
> > resource creation.
>
> We should probably expand the scope of this discussion a bit then and
> think about it more along the lines of 'ease of installation' improvements.
Yes. I hope to have a installer proposal ready by the end of the week.
> I agree that having the app be able to manage the database itself is
> pretty nice and i don't see any reason why we can't do something like
> that, but since many folks do use Roller as an enterprise app I think
> we'll definitely want to make it easy to disable that so that the
> scripts can be run manually.
Definitely, we want users to be able to override auto-installation.
> As far as an external installer is concerned, I can see that as being a
> nice thing if it's done well, but IMO that should not be necessary. I
> think that the way to make the app as easy to install as possible is to
> be able to simply drop it in a web container and define any
> configuration necessary either after it's been deployed, or before
> deployment using our config file, and that's it.
> I actually think this
> should include the database and mail resources as well, since trying to
> maintain docs and info about how to do that across XX app servers is
> difficult and effectively unnecessary. We should be able to provide our
> own way of managing those resources so that we can make it easy and
> standard for users to configure.
Managing our own configuration does have some advantages. I think it
should be part of the picture, but I also need to be able to handle
the case where we use the "container managed" database pools, mail
sessions and authentication that are built into the various
application servers.
This is pretty easy to do with Spring. ;-)
Matt
- Dave
--
http://raibledesigns.com
