Awesome. Sounds like a plan. -- Rod Simpson T @rockerston W rodsimpson.com
On January 4, 2015 at 4:01:56 PM, John D. Ament ([email protected]) wrote: +1 I'm good with that. We do need to delete the file as well. On Jan 4, 2015 5:48 PM, "Ed Anuff" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we can kill the CSS files if necessary, it looks like this is the > only CSS file that I can find: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/blob/master/stack/rest/src/main/webapp/css/styles.css > > > Simply commenting it out should have no adverse effect except that certain > pages are not going to look so hot. > > I'm pretty sure we could easily recreate the ClasspathStaticHttpHandler > just by using whatever was auto-generated as a subclass by the IDE. All > the important code in it was written from scratch, but deleting the file > and commenting out > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/blob/master/stack/launcher/src/main/java/org/apache/usergrid/launcher/Server.java#L159 > > will get us there the fastest. > > Ed > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 2:29 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Ok, I think I see what happened. > > > > However, i'm going back to my original question - is this really > > used/needed? > > > > I can only find one css file that makes it into the rest app build. > > > > The JSPs get wrapped into grizzly directly - no source code. Unless you > > want to say that Server might be from questioanble locations. > > > > It should be easy enough to rewrite if that makes sense, however I highly > > doubt that this file is really CDDL/GPL, since most of it looks innovated > > and the structure seems to be what's understood from the original class. > > > > On Sun Jan 04 2015 at 5:01:59 PM John D. Ament <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Are we sure that this is actually a CDDL/GPL licensed file? Is it > >> possible it was mislabeled? > >> > >> I can't find any reference to it in the grizzly code base. If you > happen > >> to have the pre-import source code around that would help. > >> > >> > >> On Sun Jan 04 2015 at 4:52:45 PM Ed Anuff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Are we OK with putting out a 1.0.x release that doesn't have Standalone > >>> or Launcher? This seems problematic. > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Rod Simpson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> The launcher is really just for convenience when initially playing > >>>> around with Usergrid. I haven’t used it for a while and it may or may > not > >>>> even work fully. It certainly isn’t integral to the system. I would > be > >>>> fine with omitting it from this release. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Rod > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Rod Simpson > >>>> T @rockerston > >>>> W rodsimpson.com > >>>> > >>>> On January 4, 2015 at 1:04:30 PM, John D. Ament ( > [email protected]) > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Yes, this is short term for the 1.0.1 release (can't ship it with the > >>>> licensing state as is). > >>>> > >>>> According to the code, it looks like it's only used for css, but that > >>>> could > >>>> be a naming thing... > >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/blob/ > >>>> master/stack/launcher/src/main/java/org/apache/usergrid/ > >>>> launcher/Server.java#L159 > >>>> > >>>> Does anyone know who this is and if we have an SGA (or equiv) from > >>>> him/her? > >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-usergrid/blob/ > >>>> master/stack/launcher/src/main/java/org/apache/usergrid/ > >>>> launcher/EmbeddedServerHelper.java#L20 > >>>> > >>>> I do have to ask, can we excluse the laucher from the release? > >>>> > >>>> John > >>>> > >>>> On Sun Jan 04 2015 at 2:53:06 PM Ed Anuff <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > I thought this was for the 1.0.1 release though. Regardless of what > we > >>>> > want to do in 2.0, doesn't the current Launcher in 1.0 fire up an > >>>> embedded > >>>> > web server that serves, among other things, a few JSPs, CSS files, > >>>> etc? I > >>>> > understand the desire to blow aware the standalone server and > >>>> launcher in > >>>> > favor of other mechanisms (although I do think that will result in > >>>> this > >>>> > being harder, not easier, for people to run locally), which is fine > >>>> for > >>>> > ticket 308, but what about 1.0.x? > >>>> > > >>>> > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Nate McCall <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > > > Agreed. The launcher is getting an overhaul in the 2.0 branch, > we > >>>> just > >>>> > > > haven't decided what that is. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Is there a Jira issue for this yet? I have some ideas (see below) > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > We've found the embedded Cassandra to be > >>>> > > > problematic, so we're open to ideas of ways to create a more > >>>> usable > >>>> > > > standalone distro that utilizes the war binary created with our > >>>> release > >>>> > > > process. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > I don't think this is a realistic goal given the complexity. > Running > >>>> > > this as a "fat jar" application and forking Cassandra to it's own > >>>> > > process would be the sanest approach. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Them's my $0.02 - let's do discussion on a ticket though. Couldn't > >>>> > > find one, so I created: > >>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/USERGRID-308 > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>> >
