.
references:
[1] http://www.nabble.com/Micro-G-td6490485s134.html#a6490485
[2] http://www.nabble.com/micro-G-modules(configs)-td6669533s134.html
[3]
http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--to-plugin-or-not-to-plugin%2C-that-is-the-question-td12410749s134.html
[4]
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-svn
has a great summary of the types
of users and their goals in that note.
references:
[1] http://www.nabble.com/Micro-G-td6490485s134.html#a6490485
[2] http://www.nabble.com/micro-G-modules(configs)-td6669533s134.html
[3]
http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--to-plugin-or-not-to-plugin%2C
On 10/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, should I put these ideas on the cwiki for discussion /
clarification? It sounds that this is the general direction we're
headed in and is rather unique. If we agree in concept it would be
good to get our web page updated to reflect
. I image
that we would still ship the full j2ee assembly and possibly even
the minimal assembly. Micro-G would be available for more
sophisticated users that wanted to build a custom image and for
vendors who might pick up Micro-G, build their own custom image,
and then add their own
On 10/5/06, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Online-deployer is empty just like the rest of the configs that are
servers. It relies on manifest classpath and the configuration it
contains. IIRC online-deployer.car is the same file as
deployer.jar. I guess you're right that a little more
On Oct 9, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 10/5/06, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Online-deployer is empty just like the rest of the configs that are
servers. It relies on manifest classpath and the configuration it
contains. IIRC online-deployer.car is the same file as
On 10/5/06, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following modules are currently included in micro-G.
What of these should we attempt to remove yet from micro-G?
Where are we heading with Micro-G? Do we want to strip off all
modules, but those that let us download plugins and enhance
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 10/5/06, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following modules are currently included in micro-G.
What of these should we attempt to remove yet from micro-G?
Where are we heading with Micro-G? Do we want to strip off all
modules, but those that let us download
:
The following modules are currently included in micro-G.
What of these should we attempt to remove yet from micro-G?
X connector-deployer
geronimo-gbean-deployer
X hot-deployer
X j2ee-deployer
X j2ee-security
X j2ee-server
j2ee-system
X online-deployer
rmi-naming
X sharedlib
shutdown
X transaction
X
the repository contents and config.xml by hand
in order to ever have more than Micro G (ick).
Anyway, I would also be in favor of separating the specs from RMI naming.
Thanks,
Aaron
P.S. Maybe we should whack the online-deployer module and rename
j2ee-security to just security or something
tool. Without this, I think
you'll have to mangle the repository contents and config.xml by hand
in order to ever have more than Micro G (ick).
Anyway, I would also be in favor of separating the specs from RMI
naming.
Thanks,
Aaron
P.S. Maybe we should whack the online-deployer module
in order to ever have more than Micro G (ick).
Anyway, I would also be in favor of separating the specs from RMI
naming.
So let me see if I understand the idea here. I can pull the spec
dependencies from RMI naming and create a new config with just those
dependencies. I suspect that I
You're absolutely right Jacek. Actually, I think the name is one of the
things still open for debate. However, once it is settled we need to
use it consistently.
I've been using micro-G as a nickname just as we used little-G to refer
to the geronimo-jetty/tomcat-minimal assemblies. But I
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
Yes...commit it...this is a great foundation for SOA and ESBs (no web
container needed).
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
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
--- Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
I'd like to see the changes. I think CTR is fine. Tomcat config
update seems like the right thing, anyway.
--kevan
On 9/25/06, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Sweeet... we need a new logo
Since its new I'm happy to look at it after you commit it.
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't create a branch earlier because I didn't have experience doing
that and thought I'd just start to play with my local build (I know, not
a good excuse but it's the truth).
I was just getting to the point where I figured I should either create a
branch or provide a patch for RTC when
+1. Go for it.
-- dims
On 9/25/06, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't create a branch earlier because I didn't have experience doing
that and thought I'd just start to play with my local build (I know, not
a good excuse but it's the truth).
I was just getting to the point where I
How is this new assembly going to work with the boilerplates?
--jason
On Sep 25, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
I didn't create a branch earlier because I didn't have experience
doing that and thought I'd just start to play with my local build
(I know, not a good excuse but it's the
What I have now is dependent upon geronimo-boilerplate-minimal (same as
the minimal tomcat assembly which I cloned and used as a starting point).
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
How is this new assembly going to work with the boilerplates?
--jason
On Sep 25, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
I
\main\resources\META-INF\geronimo-plugin.xml
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 449892.
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
