Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

Oh! right, I missed out observing! that IRC logs are hosted on a third party
site and relying on them would be unacceptable. I also see why
http://geronimo.apache.org/get-involved.html pages mentions discussions on
IRC being informal :-) . Things are clear & straight now. Thanks Jacek for
bringing this up.

-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:56 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I know kevan already responded but this is important... so I'm saying
> the same thing again...
> On Feb 20, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2008 8:30 AM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 2008 1:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > GEP Task https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-278 is
> > > created for this. We can use this, as well as IRC chats & dev-list
> > mails,
> > > for collaborating!
> >
> > Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for any important stuff around it. I'd be glad
> > to learn a bit about Eclipse plugin development following your
> > conversations. Okey?
>
> I have generally found discussions on IRC leading to quicker & better
> understanding of problems. All discussions on #geronimo get logged in
> http://servlet.uwyn.com/drone/log/bevinbot/geronimo/mmdd and I
> typically paste those links into relevant JIRAs. So no discussions are lost.
> Now duplicating this effort by again posting mails on dev-list would be very
> time consuming :(
>
>
> umm, tough :-)
>
> All development decisions MUST be documented and preferably made on the
> mailing lists.  In addition, relying on a third party website is NOT
> ACCEPTABLE.  If you choose to use IRC to come up with an idea for how to
> implement something you have to document that proposal on the mailing lists.
>
>
> In my experience IRC conversations about design are incomprehensible after
> the fact so its usually necessary to actually write an email describing what
> you are proposing rather than quote IRC.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Shiva
>
>
> >
> >
>
> > Jacek
> >
> > --
> > Jacek Laskowski
> > http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

I know kevan already responded but this is important... so I'm  
saying the same thing again...


On Feb 20, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:




On Feb 16, 2008 8:30 AM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

On Feb 15, 2008 1:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> GEP Task https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ 
GERONIMODEVTOOLS-278 is
> created for this. We can use this, as well as IRC chats & dev- 
list mails,

> for collaborating!

Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for any important stuff around it. I'd be glad
to learn a bit about Eclipse plugin development following your
conversations. Okey?
I have generally found discussions on IRC leading to quicker &  
better understanding of problems. All discussions on #geronimo get  
logged in http://servlet.uwyn.com/drone/log/bevinbot/geronimo/ 
mmdd and I typically paste those links into relevant JIRAs. So  
no discussions are lost. Now duplicating this effort by again  
posting mails on dev-list would be very time consuming :(


umm, tough :-)

All development decisions MUST be documented and preferably made on  
the mailing lists.  In addition, relying on a third party website is  
NOT ACCEPTABLE.  If you choose to use IRC to come up with an idea for  
how to implement something you have to document that proposal on the  
mailing lists.


In my experience IRC conversations about design are incomprehensible  
after the fact so its usually necessary to actually write an email  
describing what you are proposing rather than quote IRC.


thanks
david jencks



--
Thanks,
Shiva




Jacek

--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jacek Laskowski]

On Feb 20, 2008 5:35 AM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright there is no option left now I guess ;-)

No and thanks for your understanding. I'm pretty certain people would
appreciate it (I will certainly).

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

Alright there is no option left now I guess ;-)

-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

On Feb 20, 2008 6:34 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Feb 20, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2008 8:30 AM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 2008 1:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > GEP Task https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-278 is
> > > created for this. We can use this, as well as IRC chats & dev-list
> > mails,
> > > for collaborating!
> >
> > Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for any important stuff around it. I'd be glad
> > to learn a bit about Eclipse plugin development following your
> > conversations. Okey?
>
> I have generally found discussions on IRC leading to quicker & better
> understanding of problems. All discussions on #geronimo get logged in
> http://servlet.uwyn.com/drone/log/bevinbot/geronimo/mmdd and I
> typically paste those links into relevant JIRAs. So no discussions are lost.
> Now duplicating this effort by again posting mails on dev-list would be very
> time consuming :(
>
>
> Shiva,
> Duplicating info from IRC onto our dev list may be a bit time consuming
> for you, but not for the community... Jacek is right.
>
> IRC conversations are certainly fast and convenient. However, they aren't
> read by everyone. People that are not online aren't given a chance to
> participate. Any significant discussions that occur on IRC should be
> reitereated on our dev list. Even Jira's are not read by everyone...
>
> --kevan
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Kevan Miller]

On Feb 20, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:




On Feb 16, 2008 8:30 AM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

On Feb 15, 2008 1:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> GEP Task https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ 
GERONIMODEVTOOLS-278 is
> created for this. We can use this, as well as IRC chats & dev-list  
mails,

> for collaborating!

Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for any important stuff around it. I'd be glad
to learn a bit about Eclipse plugin development following your
conversations. Okey?
I have generally found discussions on IRC leading to quicker &  
better understanding of problems. All discussions on #geronimo get  
logged in http://servlet.uwyn.com/drone/log/bevinbot/geronimo/ 
mmdd and I typically paste those links into relevant JIRAs. So  
no discussions are lost. Now duplicating this effort by again  
posting mails on dev-list would be very time consuming :(


Shiva,
Duplicating info from IRC onto our dev list may be a bit time  
consuming for you, but not for the community... Jacek is right.


IRC conversations are certainly fast and convenient. However, they  
aren't read by everyone. People that are not online aren't given a  
chance to participate. Any significant discussions that occur on IRC  
should be reitereated on our dev list. Even Jira's are not read by  
everyone...


--kevan

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

On Feb 16, 2008 8:30 AM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2008 1:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > GEP Task https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-278 is
> > created for this. We can use this, as well as IRC chats & dev-list
> mails,
> > for collaborating!
>
> Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for any important stuff around it. I'd be glad
> to learn a bit about Eclipse plugin development following your
> conversations. Okey?

I have generally found discussions on IRC leading to quicker & better
understanding of problems. All discussions on #geronimo get logged in
http://servlet.uwyn.com/drone/log/bevinbot/geronimo/mmdd and I typically
paste those links into relevant JIRAs. So no discussions are lost. Now
duplicating this effort by again posting mails on dev-list would be very
time consuming :(

-- 
Thanks,
Shiva


>
>

> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jacek Laskowski]

On Feb 15, 2008 1:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> GEP Task https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-278 is
> created for this. We can use this, as well as IRC chats & dev-list mails,
> for collaborating!

Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for any important stuff around it. I'd be glad
to learn a bit about Eclipse plugin development following your
conversations. Okey?

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

Wow! Thanks so much YunFeng! for joining.

GEP Task https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-278 is
created for this. We can use this, as well as IRC chats & dev-list mails,
for collaborating!

Thanks again,
Shiva

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM, YunFeng Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm interested in "2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
>  a) Model
> framework for Geronimo deployment plans" and I'd like
> to contribute to
> this. Shiva, let's work together for this. :-)
>
> --YunFeng
>
> Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> > I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in
> reference to this:
> > i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to
> Geronimo" mail
> > from Prasad in Nov'07
> >
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
> > ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in
> Aug'07
> >
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
> > iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?"
> mail from Matt in
> > Jul'07
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html
> >
> > Alright, here is my wish list - features that I
> would love to see
> > getting into Geronimo in 2008:
> > 1) Deployment Environment:
> > a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in
> Geronimo Eclipse
> > Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many*
> other Geronimo
> > deployment plans.
> > b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further
> simplify the
> > specification of Geronimo deployment information,
> right at development
> > time.
> >
> > 2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
> > a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment
> plans:
> > Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework).
> With every update to
> > Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
> generate new EMF
> > classes. If however, GEP uses the same model
> framework as that of
> > Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at least this
> problem would be
> > solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans would be the ideal
> model framework
> > for GEP - in that case even if the model framework
> of server changes
> > in future, GEP would be unaffected.
> > b) Critical bug fixes
> > c) Make "Download and Install" option more
> intuitive
> > d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
> > The default implementation of WTP's web services
> wizard embeds an Axis
> > engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web
> server such as
> > Tomcat. However this isn't the right approach for
> Geronimo as it
> > already has a global web services engine deployed.
> Hence web services
> > wizard's behavior must be customized when deploying
> onto Geronimo.
> > e) Better Remote server support
> > f) Testsuite Automation
> > g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.
> >
> > 3) Admin Console Tools:
> > a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button"
> to push that spits
> > out a server with just what is needed for a set of
> apps and nothing
> > else.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
> > b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of
> partial clustering
> > solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat
> clustering, a
> > terracotta integration, and many others. A cluster
> admin tool would be
> > of great help in the setting-up and fine-tuning of
> those clustering
> > solutions.
> >
> > I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past
> year or so and it
> > is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of
> those features,
> > God alone knows when I will complete them. Any
> takers/collaborators?
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to
> re-list all our
> > achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec
> 2007
> >
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).
>
> > Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is
> time we start
> > discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in
> year 2008.  Let us
> > also discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo
> an application
> > server of choice.  I would like all of us to use
> this mail thread
> > to put forth our thoughts (and any action items
> some of us may
> > have already come up with silently) so that the
> community can see
> > what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > ++Vamsi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Shiva
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[YunFeng Ma]

I'm interested in "2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP): 
  a) Model 
framework for Geronimo deployment plans" and I'd like
to contribute to 
this. Shiva, let's work together for this. :-)

--YunFeng

Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in
reference to this:
> i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to
Geronimo" mail 
> from Prasad in Nov'07 
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
> ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in
Aug'07 
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
> iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?"
mail from Matt in 
> Jul'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html
>
> Alright, here is my wish list - features that I
would love to see 
> getting into Geronimo in 2008:
> 1) Deployment Environment:
> a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in
Geronimo Eclipse 
> Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many*
other Geronimo 
> deployment plans.
> b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further
simplify the 
> specification of Geronimo deployment information,
right at development 
> time.
>
> 2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
> a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment
plans:
> Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework).
With every update to 
> Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
generate new EMF 
> classes. If however, GEP uses the same model
framework as that of 
> Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at least this
problem would be 
> solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans would be the ideal
model framework 
> for GEP - in that case even if the model framework
of server changes 
> in future, GEP would be unaffected.
> b) Critical bug fixes
> c) Make "Download and Install" option more
intuitive
> d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
> The default implementation of WTP's web services
wizard embeds an Axis 
> engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web
server such as 
> Tomcat. However this isn't the right approach for
Geronimo as it 
> already has a global web services engine deployed.
Hence web services 
> wizard's behavior must be customized when deploying
onto Geronimo.
> e) Better Remote server support
> f) Testsuite Automation
> g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.
>
> 3) Admin Console Tools:
> a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button"
to push that spits 
> out a server with just what is needed for a set of
apps and nothing 
> else.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
> b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of
partial clustering 
> solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat
clustering, a 
> terracotta integration, and many others. A cluster
admin tool would be 
> of great help in the setting-up and fine-tuning of
those clustering 
> solutions.
>
> I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past
year or so and it 
> is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of
those features, 
> God alone knows when I will complete them. Any
takers/collaborators?
>
> On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to
re-list all our
> achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec
2007
>
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).

> Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is
time we start
> discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in
year 2008.  Let us
> also discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo
an application
> server of choice.  I would like all of us to use
this mail thread
> to put forth our thoughts (and any action items
some of us may
> have already come up with silently) so that the
community can see
> what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ++Vamsi
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Shiva 




  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jarek Gawor]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Things that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:
>
>  EE 6 -- we should be seeing an initial EE 6 spec, soon. As other
>  projects begin implementing EE 6 capabilities, I expect that we'll be
>  rolling them into Geronimo. There are also new specifications which we
>  may need to implement ourselves. I know that Jarek has looked at the
>  Concurrency Utilities specification (which may be part of EE 6).
>  Hoping he can tell us about that...

Yes. I'll start a new thread on that topic.

Jarek

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Kevan Miller]

On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:



On Feb 13, 2008 1:56 AM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Things that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:

EE 6 -- we should be seeing an initial EE 6 spec, soon. As other
projects begin implementing EE 6 capabilities, I expect that we'll be
rolling them into Geronimo. There are also new specifications which we
may need to implement ourselves. I know that Jarek has looked at the
Concurrency Utilities specification (which may be part of EE 6).
Hoping he can tell us about that...

Performance -- One area that I think we need to improve is startup
time. I think our startup has slowed down, and I'd like to see us
speed it up dramatically. We can measure current startup performance
and optimize our hot spots. Depending on what we find, we can also
investigate algorithmic enhancements.

And what about size of our assemblies? With G1.1.1 I had always  
taken pride talking about Geronimo being lightweight - a J2EE server  
under just 35MB!!


I remember there were some discussions & effort before 2.0 release.  
Have we reached a point where we can't reduce the size any further?


Good point. I definitely think it's good to keep an eye on this. I'm  
more concerned about keeping minimal assembly (or custom assembly ;-)  
size to a minimum, than I am about Java EE size.


Taking a quick scan of a 2.1 Tomcat EE5 server -- unpacked we're 104  
megs. 50 megs of that are in repository/org/apache/geronimo. 26 megs  
are in our configs. And 20 megs are in the following two configs:


  org/apache/geronimo/configs/dojo-legacy-tomcat (5)
  org/apache/geronimo/configs/dojo-tomcat (15)

--kevan

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

On Feb 13, 2008 4:57 AM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:36 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Things that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:
> >>
> >> EE 6 -- we should be seeing an initial EE 6 spec, soon. As other
> >> projects begin implementing EE 6 capabilities, I expect that we'll
> >> be rolling them into Geronimo. There are also new specifications
> >> which we may need to implement ourselves. I know that Jarek has
> >> looked at the Concurrency Utilities specification (which may be
> >> part of EE 6). Hoping he can tell us about that...
> >>
> >> Performance -- One area that I think we need to improve is startup
> >> time. I think our startup has slowed down, and I'd like to see us
> >> speed it up dramatically. We can measure current startup
> >> performance and optimize our hot spots. Depending on what we find,
> >> we can also investigate algorithmic enhancements.
> >
> > I think most of this is because we're including more stuff to start
> > in our server.  Framework start pretty fast -- less than 5 sec on my
> > overloaded mac.
>
> Heh. We both need new Macs, I think. Come on Apple and release new MBPs!
>
> Would you agree that faster startup time is a good thing? IMO 5
> seconds is way too slow for a framework assembly. Were you using
> 'gsh'? IMO startup time for a framework assembly should be ~ 1 second.
> I'd like to see a Java EE server in under 10 seconds...
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Monitoring -- I think we need to get a handle on the metrics that
> >> can be monitored in Geronimo, document them, and look for areas of
> >> improvement.
> >>
> >> Logging -- review our current logging infrastructure. Too many
> >> components lack appropriate logging capabilities. This makes debug
> >> and problem analysis more difficult than it should be. I think we
> >> need to start addressing this problem with more. We're debugging
> >> too many problems, still.
> >
> > Also switch to slf4j
>
> Yes, but the hard part is getting good logging info...
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Plugin development -- I'd like to make it easier to develop
> >> plugins. I think we should look into tooling support (Eclipse and
> >> Netbeans). I'd also like to simplify the process for administrative
> >> creation of plugins (admin console or admin commands).
> >
> > I think you can turn a module into a plugin using the admin console,
> > but the support is incomplete and definitely too hard.  Just
> > deploying an app should result in some kind of default plugin info.
>
> Sounds like we're in basic agreement.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Server assembly --  We could look at simplifying this process. You
> >> currently must have application plugins in order to include
> >> application capabilities in a server assembly. Why not export based
> >> on one or more installed applications? Also, in addition to our
> >> current, low-level module/plugin focus, can we have a simpler/
> >> higher-level focus? Some users would rather choose "JMS" rather
> >> than "org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.1/car", "JSP/
> >> Servlet", "Deploy" capabilities, etc.
> >
> > Why would someone choose "jms" rather than "my app, which uses jms,
> > so it will get pulled in automatically"?  I think we definitely need
> > to make all deployed apps into plugins automatically but beyond that
> > I'm not yet seeing a big benefit...  If you are constructing a
> > server that does more than support a set of apps, I think supplying
> > complete names of what you are getting yourself in for is valuable :-)
>
>
> I'm sure that "you" do see the need for complete names... ;-) And I do
> too... However, I think there's room for a beginner's mode (JMS, etc)
> and an expert's mode... Or at least an expert's mode that is less
> intimidating to a new user.
>
> I see two styles of usage for custom assemblies:
>
> 1. Application centric: contain user applications and required server
> components. These server images may not have "deploy" capabilities.
> They're essentially disposable server images. When you need to upgrade
> your user applications, you throw the server image away and install a
> new one.
> 2. Function-centric: contain custom server components, but no user
> applications. Users choose the desired function (e.g. web container
> plus JMS). And then deploy/undeploy apps to the server.
>

1 & 2 are just awesome. I too think we must support both styles.

One immediate usage of #1 that's coming to mind is: Let's say I am an
Application developer and have developed an application on top of Geronimo.
Now let's say I want more & more people to start using my application and
start providing their feedback. Typical way would have been to ask users to
download & install Geronimo first and then install & configure my
application on top of it. However if #1 above is available, things could
become very simple. All I have to do is generate a custom server with just
my application and its required depe

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

On Feb 13, 2008 1:56 AM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Things that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:
>
> EE 6 -- we should be seeing an initial EE 6 spec, soon. As other
> projects begin implementing EE 6 capabilities, I expect that we'll be
> rolling them into Geronimo. There are also new specifications which we
> may need to implement ourselves. I know that Jarek has looked at the
> Concurrency Utilities specification (which may be part of EE 6).
> Hoping he can tell us about that...
>
> Performance -- One area that I think we need to improve is startup
> time. I think our startup has slowed down, and I'd like to see us
> speed it up dramatically. We can measure current startup performance
> and optimize our hot spots. Depending on what we find, we can also
> investigate algorithmic enhancements.
>

And what about size of our assemblies? With G1.1.1 I had always taken pride
talking about Geronimo being lightweight - a J2EE server under just 35MB!!

I remember there were some discussions & effort before 2.0 release. Have we
reached a point where we can't reduce the size any further?


> Monitoring -- I think we need to get a handle on the metrics that can
> be monitored in Geronimo, document them, and look for areas of
> improvement.
>
> Logging -- review our current logging infrastructure. Too many
> components lack appropriate logging capabilities. This makes debug and
> problem analysis more difficult than it should be. I think we need to
> start addressing this problem with more. We're debugging too many
> problems, still.
>

+100 Would go a long way in improving usability/consumability of Geronimo.


> Plugin development -- I'd like to make it easier to develop plugins. I
> think we should look into tooling support (Eclipse and Netbeans). I'd
> also like to simplify the process for administrative creation of
> plugins (admin console or admin commands).
>
> Server assembly --  We could look at simplifying this process. You
> currently must have application plugins in order to include
> application capabilities in a server assembly. Why not export based on
> one or more installed applications? Also, in addition to our current,
> low-level module/plugin focus, can we have a simpler/higher-level
> focus? Some users would rather choose "JMS" rather than
> "org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.1/car", "JSP/Servlet",
> "Deploy" capabilities, etc.
>
> --kevan
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Kevan Miller]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:36 PM, David Jencks wrote:



On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:


Things that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:

EE 6 -- we should be seeing an initial EE 6 spec, soon. As other  
projects begin implementing EE 6 capabilities, I expect that we'll  
be rolling them into Geronimo. There are also new specifications  
which we may need to implement ourselves. I know that Jarek has  
looked at the Concurrency Utilities specification (which may be  
part of EE 6). Hoping he can tell us about that...


Performance -- One area that I think we need to improve is startup  
time. I think our startup has slowed down, and I'd like to see us  
speed it up dramatically. We can measure current startup  
performance and optimize our hot spots. Depending on what we find,  
we can also investigate algorithmic enhancements.


I think most of this is because we're including more stuff to start  
in our server.  Framework start pretty fast -- less than 5 sec on my  
overloaded mac.


Heh. We both need new Macs, I think. Come on Apple and release new MBPs!

Would you agree that faster startup time is a good thing? IMO 5  
seconds is way too slow for a framework assembly. Were you using  
'gsh'? IMO startup time for a framework assembly should be ~ 1 second.  
I'd like to see a Java EE server in under 10 seconds...







Monitoring -- I think we need to get a handle on the metrics that  
can be monitored in Geronimo, document them, and look for areas of  
improvement.


Logging -- review our current logging infrastructure. Too many  
components lack appropriate logging capabilities. This makes debug  
and problem analysis more difficult than it should be. I think we  
need to start addressing this problem with more. We're debugging  
too many problems, still.


Also switch to slf4j


Yes, but the hard part is getting good logging info...







Plugin development -- I'd like to make it easier to develop  
plugins. I think we should look into tooling support (Eclipse and  
Netbeans). I'd also like to simplify the process for administrative  
creation of plugins (admin console or admin commands).


I think you can turn a module into a plugin using the admin console,  
but the support is incomplete and definitely too hard.  Just  
deploying an app should result in some kind of default plugin info.


Sounds like we're in basic agreement.





Server assembly --  We could look at simplifying this process. You  
currently must have application plugins in order to include  
application capabilities in a server assembly. Why not export based  
on one or more installed applications? Also, in addition to our  
current, low-level module/plugin focus, can we have a simpler/ 
higher-level focus? Some users would rather choose "JMS" rather  
than "org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.1/car", "JSP/ 
Servlet", "Deploy" capabilities, etc.


Why would someone choose "jms" rather than "my app, which uses jms,  
so it will get pulled in automatically"?  I think we definitely need  
to make all deployed apps into plugins automatically but beyond that  
I'm not yet seeing a big benefit...  If you are constructing a  
server that does more than support a set of apps, I think supplying  
complete names of what you are getting yourself in for is valuable :-)



I'm sure that "you" do see the need for complete names... ;-) And I do  
too... However, I think there's room for a beginner's mode (JMS, etc)  
and an expert's mode... Or at least an expert's mode that is less  
intimidating to a new user.


I see two styles of usage for custom assemblies:

1. Application centric: contain user applications and required server  
components. These server images may not have "deploy" capabilities.  
They're essentially disposable server images. When you need to upgrade  
your user applications, you throw the server image away and install a  
new one.
2. Function-centric: contain custom server components, but no user  
applications. Users choose the desired function (e.g. web container  
plus JMS). And then deploy/undeploy apps to the server.


I think you agree we can easily support both styles. There's simply  
the question of how usable do we want to make scenario #2?


--kevan

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:


Things that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:

EE 6 -- we should be seeing an initial EE 6 spec, soon. As other  
projects begin implementing EE 6 capabilities, I expect that we'll  
be rolling them into Geronimo. There are also new specifications  
which we may need to implement ourselves. I know that Jarek has  
looked at the Concurrency Utilities specification (which may be  
part of EE 6). Hoping he can tell us about that...


Performance -- One area that I think we need to improve is startup  
time. I think our startup has slowed down, and I'd like to see us  
speed it up dramatically. We can measure current startup  
performance and optimize our hot spots. Depending on what we find,  
we can also investigate algorithmic enhancements.


I think most of this is because we're including more stuff to start  
in our server.  Framework start pretty fast -- less than 5 sec on my  
overloaded mac.




Monitoring -- I think we need to get a handle on the metrics that  
can be monitored in Geronimo, document them, and look for areas of  
improvement.


Logging -- review our current logging infrastructure. Too many  
components lack appropriate logging capabilities. This makes debug  
and problem analysis more difficult than it should be. I think we  
need to start addressing this problem with more. We're debugging  
too many problems, still.


Also switch to slf4j



Plugin development -- I'd like to make it easier to develop  
plugins. I think we should look into tooling support (Eclipse and  
Netbeans). I'd also like to simplify the process for administrative  
creation of plugins (admin console or admin commands).


I think you can turn a module into a plugin using the admin console,  
but the support is incomplete and definitely too hard.  Just  
deploying an app should result in some kind of default plugin info.


Server assembly --  We could look at simplifying this process. You  
currently must have application plugins in order to include  
application capabilities in a server assembly. Why not export based  
on one or more installed applications? Also, in addition to our  
current, low-level module/plugin focus, can we have a simpler/ 
higher-level focus? Some users would rather choose "JMS" rather  
than "org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.1/car", "JSP/ 
Servlet", "Deploy" capabilities, etc.


Why would someone choose "jms" rather than "my app, which uses jms,  
so it will get pulled in automatically"?  I think we definitely need  
to make all deployed apps into plugins automatically but beyond that  
I'm not yet seeing a big benefit...  If you are constructing a server  
that does more than support a set of apps, I think supplying complete  
names of what you are getting yourself in for is valuable :-)


thanks
david jencks



--kevan

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:


Kevan Miller wrote:

Server assembly --  We could look at simplifying this process. You  
currently must have application plugins in order to include  
application capabilities in a server assembly. Why not export  
based on one or more installed applications? Also, in addition to  
our current, low-level module/plugin focus, can we have a simpler/ 
higher-level focus? Some users would rather choose "JMS" rather  
than "org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.1/car", "JSP/ 
Servlet", "Deploy" capabilities, etc.


Yes, I think this "template" notion (I think we've used that term  
at other times) is the next logical step in the flexible server.   
I'm not sure if you were thinking only in terms of the Server  
Assembly function (from the console or command line) ... but this  
would make a lot of sense from a remote install capability as  
well.  We could get to a point where the user could just download  
the framework assembly and then choose to install a template from a  
"Template Repository" for something like "Tomcat minimal" or "Jetty  
full Java EE 5" and have the server image upgraded to that  
configuration.


that's basically how the server assemblies are made today, the  
template being the pom.  I think the only missing bit is extracting  
the schemas.  This could be done through a "copy-resource" function  
in a plugin xml.


thanks
david jencks



Joe

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

I think dain may have something up his sleeve in xbean-reflect that  
will make points 1-3 much easier if we start with 1.  Time will tell.


thanks
david jencks

On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:


I like this list but I think we should first focus on features that
directly impact the end-user experience with G. For example,
considering the first three items on this list, the 3rd one has the
most impact on the end user and therefore in my mind it should have
higher priority then the other two.

Jarek

On Feb 11, 2008 11:20 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Replace as much as possible of the gbean infrastructure with xbean- 
reflect


Remove the necessity of specifying gbean metadata in java code  
(GBeanInfo)


Replace config.ser with xml

Improve maven integration and use maven components and concepts where
possible.  For instance, the provided scope means "this jar is  
available in
this components classloader but not children" == something we  
don't really

support.  Optional dependencies might really simplify a lot of
configuration.

Come up with an OSGI story

Improve Spring integration

Provide a RBAC security system (such as triplesec or redback)

Improve Roller and Jetspeed integration, including security  
integration.


I agree with the other proposals too.

thanks
david jencks




On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg54994.html).  Now
that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start  
discussing what we
want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we  
"must" do
to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like  
all of us to
use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action  
items some of
us may have already come up with silently) so that the community  
can see

what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.

Thank you.

++Vamsi

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Joe Bohn]

Kevan Miller wrote:

Server assembly --  We could look at simplifying this process. You 
currently must have application plugins in order to include application 
capabilities in a server assembly. Why not export based on one or more 
installed applications? Also, in addition to our current, low-level 
module/plugin focus, can we have a simpler/higher-level focus? Some 
users would rather choose "JMS" rather than 
"org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.1/car", "JSP/Servlet", 
"Deploy" capabilities, etc.


Yes, I think this "template" notion (I think we've used that term at 
other times) is the next logical step in the flexible server.  I'm not 
sure if you were thinking only in terms of the Server Assembly function 
(from the console or command line) ... but this would make a lot of 
sense from a remote install capability as well.  We could get to a point 
where the user could just download the framework assembly and then 
choose to install a template from a "Template Repository" for something 
like "Tomcat minimal" or "Jetty full Java EE 5" and have the server 
image upgraded to that configuration.


Joe

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Joe Bohn]

Jarek Gawor wrote:

I like this list but I think we should first focus on features that
directly impact the end-user experience with G. For example,
considering the first three items on this list, the 3rd one has the
most impact on the end user and therefore in my mind it should have
higher priority then the other two.



I agree totally.  We need to focus on usability and ensure that the most 
common activities for users are easy to accomplish.


Joe

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Kevan Miller]

Things that I haven't seen mentioned, yet:

EE 6 -- we should be seeing an initial EE 6 spec, soon. As other  
projects begin implementing EE 6 capabilities, I expect that we'll be  
rolling them into Geronimo. There are also new specifications which we  
may need to implement ourselves. I know that Jarek has looked at the  
Concurrency Utilities specification (which may be part of EE 6).  
Hoping he can tell us about that...


Performance -- One area that I think we need to improve is startup  
time. I think our startup has slowed down, and I'd like to see us  
speed it up dramatically. We can measure current startup performance  
and optimize our hot spots. Depending on what we find, we can also  
investigate algorithmic enhancements.


Monitoring -- I think we need to get a handle on the metrics that can  
be monitored in Geronimo, document them, and look for areas of  
improvement.


Logging -- review our current logging infrastructure. Too many  
components lack appropriate logging capabilities. This makes debug and  
problem analysis more difficult than it should be. I think we need to  
start addressing this problem with more. We're debugging too many  
problems, still.


Plugin development -- I'd like to make it easier to develop plugins. I  
think we should look into tooling support (Eclipse and Netbeans). I'd  
also like to simplify the process for administrative creation of  
plugins (admin console or admin commands).


Server assembly --  We could look at simplifying this process. You  
currently must have application plugins in order to include  
application capabilities in a server assembly. Why not export based on  
one or more installed applications? Also, in addition to our current,  
low-level module/plugin focus, can we have a simpler/higher-level  
focus? Some users would rather choose "JMS" rather than  
"org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.1/car", "JSP/Servlet",  
"Deploy" capabilities, etc.


--kevan

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Joe Bohn]

David Jencks wrote:


On Feb 12, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:


Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:12 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:

On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:



On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

3a is implemented in 2.1

Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?

yes, the bottom of the plugin page.  Also there's a gshell command
for it
"Assemble a server" option looks too hidden under other features :( . 
A portlet on it's own would have better grabbed the attention of 
users towards it. We must at least highlight it now in our 
documentation.


I think both. This feature is important enough to be on its own, 
probably under 'Server' and we definitively need to document in deep 
how it works. That includes explaining the plugin architecture as well.


I'll see if I can get the plugin architecture documentation kicked off 
this week.


I think we should either change the left-hand menu item to something 
more inclusive that "plugins" (my current preference) or create a new 
group in the left hand menu with "add plugins" "edit plugin" and 
"extract server" (I think this will make the LHM too long).


The LHM is getting pretty long.  I wonder if we can do something to 
shorten it -- perhaps a tree?




IIRC the navigation on the console was originally a tree and the folders 
that you see now were the top level branches.  It might have been Aaron 
that made them fixed.  I think it makes sense to return to the tree so 
long as we make it obvious that the branches can be expanded (perhaps 
including an expand all type of option).


Joe

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Hernan Cunico]

David Jencks wrote:


On Feb 12, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:


Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:12 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:

On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:



On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

3a is implemented in 2.1

Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?

yes, the bottom of the plugin page.  Also there's a gshell command
for it
"Assemble a server" option looks too hidden under other features :( . 
A portlet on it's own would have better grabbed the attention of 
users towards it. We must at least highlight it now in our 
documentation.


I think both. This feature is important enough to be on its own, 
probably under 'Server' and we definitively need to document in deep 
how it works. That includes explaining the plugin architecture as well.


I'll see if I can get the plugin architecture documentation kicked off 
this week.


I think we should either change the left-hand menu item to something 
more inclusive that "plugins" (my current preference) or create a new 
group in the left hand menu with "add plugins" "edit plugin" and 
"extract server" (I think this will make the LHM too long).


The LHM is getting pretty long.  I wonder if we can do something to 
shorten it -- perhaps a tree?


collapsible trees would be nice. That way the list will come down to just 6-7 entries so 
we would be able to bring up new "sections" to the top level.

Cheers!
Hernan



thanks
david jencks


Cheers!
Hernan


 --
Thanks,
Shiva
david jencks




Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I
think a very strong argument can be made for moving the
deployer code to jaxb.

Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a
separate thread on this.


thanks
david jencks

On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:


I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference
to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to
Geronimo" mail from Prasad in Nov'07

http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html

ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07

http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html

iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from
Matt in Jul'07

http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html


Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to
see getting into Geronimo in 2008:
1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo
Eclipse Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other
Geronimo deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the
specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at
development time.

2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every
update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
generate new EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same model
framework as that of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at
least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans
would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case
even if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP
would be unaffected.
b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard
embeds an Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in
a web server such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right
approach for Geronimo as it already has a global web services
engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's behavior must be
customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push
that spits out a server with just what is needed for a set of
apps and nothing else.

http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html

b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial
clustering solutions. For instance there's WADI, native
tomcat clustering, a terracotta integration, and many others.
A cluster admin tool would be of great help in the setting-up
and fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.

I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work 

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jason Warner]

I like the idea of a tree.  The headings for each category are descriptive
enough that I
don't think we'd lose usability by hiding what's under each category until
needed.


On Feb 12, 2008 11:35 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
> > Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 2008 10:12 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 3a is implemented in 2.1
> >>>
> >>> Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?
> >> yes, the bottom of the plugin page.  Also there's a gshell
> >> command
> >> for it
> >> "Assemble a server" option looks too hidden under other features :
> >> ( . A portlet on it's own would have better grabbed the attention
> >> of users towards it. We must at least highlight it now in our
> >> documentation.
> >
> > I think both. This feature is important enough to be on its own,
> > probably under 'Server' and we definitively need to document in
> > deep how it works. That includes explaining the plugin architecture
> > as well.
>
> I'll see if I can get the plugin architecture documentation kicked
> off this week.
>
> I think we should either change the left-hand menu item to something
> more inclusive that "plugins" (my current preference) or create a new
> group in the left hand menu with "add plugins" "edit plugin" and
> "extract server" (I think this will make the LHM too long).
>
> The LHM is getting pretty long.  I wonder if we can do something to
> shorten it -- perhaps a tree?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Hernan
> >
> >>  --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Shiva
> >> david jencks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I
> >>> think a very strong argument can be made for moving the
> >>> deployer code to jaxb.
> >>>
> >>> Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a
> >>> separate thread on this.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>> david jencks
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> >>>
>  I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference
>  to this:
>  i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to
>  Geronimo" mail from Prasad in Nov'07
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/
>  msg53236.html
>  ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/
>  msg50660.html
>  iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from
>  Matt in Jul'07
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/
>  msg48173.html
> 
>  Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would
>  love to
>  see getting into Geronimo in 2008:
>  1) Deployment Environment:
>  a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo
>  Eclipse Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many*
>  other
>  Geronimo deployment plans.
>  b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further
>  simplify the
>  specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at
>  development time.
> 
>  2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
>  a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
>  Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With
>  every
>  update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
>  generate new EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same
>  model
>  framework as that of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at
>  least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88
>  DConfigBeans
>  would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case
>  even if the model framework of server changes in future,
>  GEP
>  would be unaffected.
>  b) Critical bug fixes
>  c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
>  d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
>  The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard
>  embeds an Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys
>  it in
>  a web server such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right
>  approach for Geronimo as it already has a global web
>  services
>  engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's behavior
>  must be
>  customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
>  e) Better Remote server support
>  f) Testsuite Automation
>  g

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:


Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:12 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
> wrote:

On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:



On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

3a is implemented in 2.1

Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?
yes, the bottom of the plugin page.  Also there's a gshell  
command

for it
"Assemble a server" option looks too hidden under other features : 
( . A portlet on it's own would have better grabbed the attention  
of users towards it. We must at least highlight it now in our  
documentation.


I think both. This feature is important enough to be on its own,  
probably under 'Server' and we definitively need to document in  
deep how it works. That includes explaining the plugin architecture  
as well.


I'll see if I can get the plugin architecture documentation kicked  
off this week.


I think we should either change the left-hand menu item to something  
more inclusive that "plugins" (my current preference) or create a new  
group in the left hand menu with "add plugins" "edit plugin" and  
"extract server" (I think this will make the LHM too long).


The LHM is getting pretty long.  I wonder if we can do something to  
shorten it -- perhaps a tree?


thanks
david jencks


Cheers!
Hernan


 --
Thanks,
Shiva
david jencks




Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I
think a very strong argument can be made for moving the
deployer code to jaxb.

Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a
separate thread on this.


thanks
david jencks

On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:


I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference
to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to
Geronimo" mail from Prasad in Nov'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg53236.html

ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg50660.html

iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from
Matt in Jul'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg48173.html


Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would  
love to

see getting into Geronimo in 2008:
1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo
Eclipse Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many*  
other

Geronimo deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further  
simplify the

specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at
development time.

2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With  
every

update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
generate new EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same  
model

framework as that of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at
least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88  
DConfigBeans

would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case
even if the model framework of server changes in future,  
GEP

would be unaffected.
b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard
embeds an Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys  
it in

a web server such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right
approach for Geronimo as it already has a global web  
services
engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's behavior  
must be

customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push
that spits out a server with just what is needed for a  
set of

apps and nothing else.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg54849.html

b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial
clustering solutions. For instance there's WADI, native
tomcat clustering, a terracotta integration, and many  
others.
A cluster admin tool would be of great help in the  
setting-up

and fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.

I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year  
or so

and it is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of
those features, God alone knows w

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Donald Woods]

I'm hoping it's just configuration options that need to be exposed in 
Geronimo.


For DataSources, it's just an updated TranQL code that supports db 
clusters and connection failovers.


For ActiveMQ, no idea, as I haven't played around with it yet.

Just throwing out thoughts

-Donald


David Jencks wrote:


On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Donald Woods wrote:




Gianny Damour wrote:

On 09/02/2008, at 12:43 AM, Donald Woods wrote:

Agree with 1a, all of #2 and 3b.

- Creating documentation when new features go into svn instead as an 
after thought when we are trying to close out a release.


- Samples become a prerequisite of each new release.

- Project mentoring - have several of us pick another open source 
project to either enable them to run on Geronimo out-of-the-box or 
create a plugin out of their application (much like has been done 
for Liferay and Roller.)  This could be the start of a "Ready for 
Geronimo" page on our website, where we list known apps and 
frameworks (like Spring and Hibernate) that can be readily used with 
Geronimo, with a page on each in our docs on installation/setup and 
known working versions for a given Geronimo release.


- Full support for running on Java SE 6

- Portlet for controlling logging levels at a component/package level

- Continued work on enable full clustering of all components

Hello Donald,
Could you please list the top two components you would like to see 
clustered?


JMS and DataSource pooling.


How is this something that geronimo can provide rather than the backend 
database/jms system?


thanks
david jencks




Thanks,
Gianny


- Start providing previews of upcoming Java EE 6 technologies


-Donald






smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Hernan Cunico]

Shiva Kumar H R wrote:


On Feb 11, 2008 10:12 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:



On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:




On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

3a is implemented in 2.1

Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?


yes, the bottom of the plugin page.  Also there's a gshell command
for it


"Assemble a server" option looks too hidden under other features :( . A 
portlet on it's own would have better grabbed the attention of users 
towards it. We must at least highlight it now in our documentation.


I think both. This feature is important enough to be on its own, probably under 
'Server' and we definitively need to document in deep how it works. That 
includes explaining the plugin architecture as well.

Cheers!
Hernan

 
--

Thanks,
Shiva


david jencks



 



Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I
think a very strong argument can be made for moving the
deployer code to jaxb.

Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a
separate thread on this.
 



thanks
david jencks

On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:


I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference
to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to
Geronimo" mail from Prasad in Nov'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from
Matt in Jul'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html

Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to
see getting into Geronimo in 2008:
1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo
Eclipse Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other
Geronimo deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the
specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at
development time.

2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every
update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
generate new EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same model
framework as that of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at
least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans
would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case
even if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP
would be unaffected.
b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard
embeds an Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in
a web server such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right
approach for Geronimo as it already has a global web services
engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's behavior must be
customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push
that spits out a server with just what is needed for a set of
apps and nothing else.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial
clustering solutions. For instance there's WADI, native
tomcat clustering, a terracotta integration, and many others.
A cluster admin tool would be of great help in the setting-up
and fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.

I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so
and it is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of
those features, God alone knows when I will complete them.
Any takers/collaborators?

On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:

Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list
all our achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec
2007
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html). 
Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we

start discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year
   

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

On Feb 11, 2008 10:12 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >  3a is implemented in 2.1
> >
> Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?
>
>
> yes, the bottom of the plugin page.  Also there's a gshell command for it
>

"Assemble a server" option looks too hidden under other features :( . A
portlet on it's own would have better grabbed the attention of users towards
it. We must at least highlight it now in our documentation.

-- 
Thanks,
Shiva


> david jencks
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I think a very
> > strong argument can be made for moving the deployer code to jaxb.
> >
> Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a separate
> thread on this.
>
>
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> >
> > I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
> > i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo" mail from
> > Prasad in Nov'07
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
> > ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
> > iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in
> > Jul'07 http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html
> >
> > Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see
> > getting into Geronimo in 2008:
> > 1) Deployment Environment:
> > a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo Eclipse
> > Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other Geronimo
> > deployment plans.
> > b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the
> > specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at development time.
> >
> > 2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
> > a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
> > Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every update to
> > Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to generate new EMF classes.
> > If however, GEP uses the same model framework as that of Geronimo server
> > (XMLBeans), then at least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88
> > DConfigBeans would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case even
> > if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.
> > b) Critical bug fixes
> > c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
> > d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
> > The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an Axis
> > engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server such as Tomcat.
> > However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo as it already has a
> > global web services engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's behavior
> > must be customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
> > e) Better Remote server support
> > f) Testsuite Automation
> > g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.
> >
> > 3) Admin Console Tools:
> > a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that spits
> > out a server with just what is needed for a set of apps and nothing else.
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
> > b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial clustering
> > solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat clustering, a terracotta
> > integration, and many others. A cluster admin tool would be of great help in
> > the setting-up and fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.
> >
> > I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and it is
> > still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those features, God alone
> > knows when I will complete them. Any takers/collaborators?
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> > > achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 (
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).
> > > Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start
> > > discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also 
> > > discuss
> > > what we "must" do to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I 
> > > would
> > > like all of us to use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any
> > > action items some of us may have already come up with silently) so that 
> > > the
> > > community can see what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > ++Vamsi
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Shiva
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Shiva
>
>
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

Nice to see your priorities :) & more so config.ser->xml & OSGI ones.

On Feb 11, 2008 9:50 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> Replace as much as possible of the gbean infrastructure with xbean-reflect
> Remove the necessity of specifying gbean metadata in java code (GBeanInfo)
>
> Replace config.ser with xml
>
> Improve maven integration and use maven components and concepts where
> possible.  For instance, the provided scope means "this jar is available in
> this components classloader but not children" == something we don't really
> support.  Optional dependencies might really simplify a lot of
> configuration.
>
> Come up with an OSGI story
>
> Improve Spring integration
>
> Provide a RBAC security system (such as triplesec or redback)
>
> Improve Roller and Jetspeed integration, including security integration.
>
> I agree with the other proposals too.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 (
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now
> that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing what
> we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must"
> do to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of us
> to use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some
> of us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ++Vamsi
>
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jarek Gawor]

I like this list but I think we should first focus on features that
directly impact the end-user experience with G. For example,
considering the first three items on this list, the 3rd one has the
most impact on the end user and therefore in my mind it should have
higher priority then the other two.

Jarek

On Feb 11, 2008 11:20 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Replace as much as possible of the gbean infrastructure with xbean-reflect
>
> Remove the necessity of specifying gbean metadata in java code (GBeanInfo)
>
> Replace config.ser with xml
>
> Improve maven integration and use maven components and concepts where
> possible.  For instance, the provided scope means "this jar is available in
> this components classloader but not children" == something we don't really
> support.  Optional dependencies might really simplify a lot of
> configuration.
>
> Come up with an OSGI story
>
> Improve Spring integration
>
> Provide a RBAC security system (such as triplesec or redback)
>
> Improve Roller and Jetspeed integration, including security integration.
>
> I agree with the other proposals too.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now
> that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing what we
> want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must" do
> to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of us to
> use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some of
> us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ++Vamsi
>
>
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:03 AM, Donald Woods wrote:



Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
> wrote:

3a is implemented in 2.1
Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?
 Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I  
think a
very strong argument can be made for moving the deployer code  
to jaxb.
Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a  
separate thread on this.


We need to discuss introducing more dependencies on JAXB as a group  
first, as this just ties more of our server code with Sun RI, which  
has no alternative implementation right now (and could be licensed  
from Sun as GPL in future releases)


My understanding is that jaxb is included in the jre starting with  
java 6.  IMO this is one of the arguments in its favor.


We also can't avoid it at this point.  Openejb deployment is very  
tied to jaxb and the geronimo startup code also  relies on it.  I  
don't think rewriting the openejb deployment system using xmlbeans is  
plausible.


thanks
david jencks




 thanks
david jencks
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference  
to this:

i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo"
mail from Prasad in Nov'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg53236.html

ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg50660.html
iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from  
Matt in

Jul'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg48173.html


Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to  
see

getting into Geronimo in 2008:
1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo
Eclipse Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other
Geronimo deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the
specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at
development time.

2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every
update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
generate new EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same model
framework as that of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at least
this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans would be
the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case even if the  
model

framework of server changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.
b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard  
embeds an

Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server
such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right approach for  
Geronimo
as it already has a global web services engine deployed.  
Hence web
services wizard's behavior must be customized when deploying  
onto

Geronimo.
e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that
spits out a server with just what is needed for a set of apps  
and

nothing else.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg54849.html

b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial
clustering solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat
clustering, a terracotta integration, and many others. A cluster
admin tool would be of great help in the setting-up and
fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.

I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so  
and

it is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those
features, God alone knows when I will complete them. Any
takers/collaborators?

On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all
our achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg54994.html). Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think  
it is time we start

discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let
us also discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo an
application server of choice.  I would like all of us to use
this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action
items some of us may have already come up with silently) so
that the community can see what great heights Geronimo will

[Fwd: Re: Geronimo in year 2008]

[Donald Woods]

In-line below.


Gianny Damour wrote:

On 09/02/2008, at 12:43 AM, Donald Woods wrote:


Agree with 1a, all of #2 and 3b.

- Creating documentation when new features go into svn instead as an 
after thought when we are trying to close out a release.


- Samples become a prerequisite of each new release.

- Project mentoring - have several of us pick another open source 
project to either enable them to run on Geronimo out-of-the-box or 
create a plugin out of their application (much like has been done for 
Liferay and Roller.)  This could be the start of a "Ready for 
Geronimo" page on our website, where we list known apps and frameworks 
(like Spring and Hibernate) that can be readily used with Geronimo, 
with a page on each in our docs on installation/setup and known 
working versions for a given Geronimo release.


- Full support for running on Java SE 6

- Portlet for controlling logging levels at a component/package level

- Continued work on enable full clustering of all components


Hello Donald,

Could you please list the top two components you would like to see 
clustered?


JMS and DataSource pooling.




Thanks,
Gianny



- Start providing previews of upcoming Java EE 6 technologies


-Donald





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Donald Woods]

Excellent list, especially getting rid of the config.ser files.


-Donald

David Jencks wrote:



Replace as much as possible of the gbean infrastructure with xbean-reflect

Remove the necessity of specifying gbean metadata in java code (GBeanInfo)

Replace config.ser with xml

Improve maven integration and use maven components and concepts where 
possible.  For instance, the provided scope means "this jar is available 
in this components classloader but not children" == something we don't 
really support.  Optional dependencies might really simplify a lot of 
configuration.


Come up with an OSGI story

Improve Spring integration

Provide a RBAC security system (such as triplesec or redback)

Improve Roller and Jetspeed integration, including security integration.

I agree with the other proposals too.

thanks
david jencks


On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:


Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our 
achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  
Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start 
discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also 
discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo an application server of 
choice.  I would like all of us to use this mail thread to put forth 
our thoughts (and any action items some of us may have already come up 
with silently) so that the community can see what great heights 
Geronimo will scale in 2008.


Thank you.

++Vamsi





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Donald Woods]

In-line

Gianny Damour wrote:


On 12/02/2008, at 3:05 AM, Donald Woods wrote:


Gianny Damour wrote:

On 09/02/2008, at 12:43 AM, Donald Woods wrote:

- Continued work on enable full clustering of all components

Hello Donald,
Could you please list the top two components you would like to see 
clustered?


JMS and DataSource pooling.


Hi,

My understanding is that ActiveMQ provides clustering services. I am 
sure the ActiveMQ experts can help us understand how to set-up AMQ for 
clustering within Geronimo.


Yep, we need someone to chime in, as I see questions about this every so 
often and it always seems to be answered for stand-alone AMQ setups...





On the DataSource side, would a DataSource using under the cover 
multiple DataSources pointing to replicated databases be what you are 
after?


Probably.  I'm actually working on a TranQL enhancement to support 
Oracle RAC environments now.  Wasn't sure what services WADI provides, 
so just throwing ideas out there (besides the obvious EJB clustering...)




Thanks,
Gianny




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

[Fwd: Re: Geronimo in year 2008]

[Donald Woods]

In-line below.


Shiva Kumar H R wrote:



On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


3a is implemented in 2.1

Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?
 



Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I think a
very strong argument can be made for moving the deployer code to jaxb.

Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a separate 
thread on this.


We need to discuss introducing more dependencies on JAXB as a group
first, as this just ties more of our server code with Sun RI, which has
no alternative implementation right now (and could be licensed from Sun
as GPL in future releases)

 



thanks
david jencks

On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:


I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo"
mail from Prasad in Nov'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in
Jul'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html

Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see
getting into Geronimo in 2008:
1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo
Eclipse Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other
Geronimo deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the
specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at
development time.

2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every
update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
generate new EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same model
framework as that of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at least
this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans would be
the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case even if the model
framework of server changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.
b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an
Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server
such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo
as it already has a global web services engine deployed. Hence web
services wizard's behavior must be customized when deploying onto
Geronimo.
e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that
spits out a server with just what is needed for a set of apps and
nothing else.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial
clustering solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat
clustering, a terracotta integration, and many others. A cluster
admin tool would be of great help in the setting-up and
fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.

I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and
it is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those
features, God alone knows when I will complete them. Any
takers/collaborators?

On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all
our achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html). 
Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start

discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let
us also discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo an
application server of choice.  I would like all of us to use
this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action
items some of us may have already come up with silently) so
that the community can see what great heights Geronimo will
scale in 2008.

Thank you.

++Vamsi




-- 
Thanks,

Shiva





--
Thanks,
Shiva


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Donald Woods wrote:




Gianny Damour wrote:

On 09/02/2008, at 12:43 AM, Donald Woods wrote:

Agree with 1a, all of #2 and 3b.

- Creating documentation when new features go into svn instead as  
an after thought when we are trying to close out a release.


- Samples become a prerequisite of each new release.

- Project mentoring - have several of us pick another open source  
project to either enable them to run on Geronimo out-of-the-box  
or create a plugin out of their application (much like has been  
done for Liferay and Roller.)  This could be the start of a  
"Ready for Geronimo" page on our website, where we list known  
apps and frameworks (like Spring and Hibernate) that can be  
readily used with Geronimo, with a page on each in our docs on  
installation/setup and known working versions for a given  
Geronimo release.


- Full support for running on Java SE 6

- Portlet for controlling logging levels at a component/package  
level


- Continued work on enable full clustering of all components

Hello Donald,
Could you please list the top two components you would like to see  
clustered?


JMS and DataSource pooling.


How is this something that geronimo can provide rather than the  
backend database/jms system?


thanks
david jencks




Thanks,
Gianny


- Start providing previews of upcoming Java EE 6 technologies


-Donald

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:




On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3a is implemented in 2.1
Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?


yes, the bottom of the plugin page.  Also there's a gshell command  
for it


david jencks




Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I think a  
very strong argument can be made for moving the deployer code to jaxb.
Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a  
separate thread on this.



thanks
david jencks

On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:


I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo"  
mail from Prasad in Nov'07 http://www.mail-archive.com/ 
dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07 http:// 
www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in  
Jul'07 http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg48173.html


Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see  
getting into Geronimo in 2008:

1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo  
Eclipse Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other  
Geronimo deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the  
specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at  
development time.


2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every  
update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to  
generate new EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same model  
framework as that of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at least  
this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans would be  
the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case even if the model  
framework of server changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.

b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an  
Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server  
such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo  
as it already has a global web services engine deployed. Hence web  
services wizard's behavior must be customized when deploying onto  
Geronimo.

e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that  
spits out a server with just what is needed for a set of apps and  
nothing else. http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg54849.html
b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial  
clustering solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat  
clustering, a terracotta integration, and many others. A cluster  
admin tool would be of great help in the setting-up and fine- 
tuning of those clustering solutions.


I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and  
it is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those  
features, God alone knows when I will complete them. Any takers/ 
collaborators?


On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our  
achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 (http:// 
www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now  
that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start  
discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us  
also discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo an application  
server of choice.  I would like all of us to use this mail thread  
to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some of us may  
have already come up with silently) so that the community can see  
what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.


Thank you.

++Vamsi




--
Thanks,
Shiva





--
Thanks,
Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

Replace as much as possible of the gbean infrastructure with xbean- 
reflect


Remove the necessity of specifying gbean metadata in java code  
(GBeanInfo)


Replace config.ser with xml

Improve maven integration and use maven components and concepts where  
possible.  For instance, the provided scope means "this jar is  
available in this components classloader but not children" ==  
something we don't really support.  Optional dependencies might  
really simplify a lot of configuration.


Come up with an OSGI story

Improve Spring integration

Provide a RBAC security system (such as triplesec or redback)

Improve Roller and Jetspeed integration, including security integration.

I agree with the other proposals too.

thanks
david jencks


On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:


Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our  
achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 (http:// 
www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now  
that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start  
discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us  
also discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo an application  
server of choice.  I would like all of us to use this mail thread  
to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some of us may have  
already come up with silently) so that the community can see what  
great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.


Thank you.

++Vamsi

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Gianny Damour]

On 12/02/2008, at 3:05 AM, Donald Woods wrote:


Gianny Damour wrote:

On 09/02/2008, at 12:43 AM, Donald Woods wrote:

- Continued work on enable full clustering of all components

Hello Donald,
Could you please list the top two components you would like to see  
clustered?


JMS and DataSource pooling.


Hi,

My understanding is that ActiveMQ provides clustering services. I am  
sure the ActiveMQ experts can help us understand how to set-up AMQ  
for clustering within Geronimo.


On the DataSource side, would a DataSource using under the cover  
multiple DataSources pointing to replicated databases be what you are  
after?


Thanks,
Gianny

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Donald Woods]

Gianny Damour wrote:

On 09/02/2008, at 12:43 AM, Donald Woods wrote:


Agree with 1a, all of #2 and 3b.

- Creating documentation when new features go into svn instead as an 
after thought when we are trying to close out a release.


- Samples become a prerequisite of each new release.

- Project mentoring - have several of us pick another open source 
project to either enable them to run on Geronimo out-of-the-box or 
create a plugin out of their application (much like has been done for 
Liferay and Roller.)  This could be the start of a "Ready for 
Geronimo" page on our website, where we list known apps and frameworks 
(like Spring and Hibernate) that can be readily used with Geronimo, 
with a page on each in our docs on installation/setup and known 
working versions for a given Geronimo release.


- Full support for running on Java SE 6

- Portlet for controlling logging levels at a component/package level

- Continued work on enable full clustering of all components


Hello Donald,

Could you please list the top two components you would like to see 
clustered?


JMS and DataSource pooling.




Thanks,
Gianny



- Start providing previews of upcoming Java EE 6 technologies


-Donald





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Donald Woods]

Shiva Kumar H R wrote:



On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


3a is implemented in 2.1

Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?
 



Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I think a
very strong argument can be made for moving the deployer code to jaxb.

Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a separate 
thread on this.


We need to discuss introducing more dependencies on JAXB as a group 
first, as this just ties more of our server code with Sun RI, which has 
no alternative implementation right now (and could be licensed from Sun 
as GPL in future releases)


 



thanks
david jencks

On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:


I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo"
mail from Prasad in Nov'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in
Jul'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html

Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see
getting into Geronimo in 2008:
1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo
Eclipse Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other
Geronimo deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the
specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at
development time.

2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every
update to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to
generate new EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same model
framework as that of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at least
this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans would be
the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case even if the model
framework of server changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.
b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an
Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server
such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo
as it already has a global web services engine deployed. Hence web
services wizard's behavior must be customized when deploying onto
Geronimo.
e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that
spits out a server with just what is needed for a set of apps and
nothing else.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial
clustering solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat
clustering, a terracotta integration, and many others. A cluster
admin tool would be of great help in the setting-up and
fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.

I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and
it is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those
features, God alone knows when I will complete them. Any
takers/collaborators?

On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all
our achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html). 
Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start

discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let
us also discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo an
application server of choice.  I would like all of us to use
this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action
items some of us may have already come up with silently) so
that the community can see what great heights Geronimo will
scale in 2008.

Thank you.

++Vamsi




-- 
Thanks,

Shiva





--
Thanks,
Shiva


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jason Warner]

On Feb 11, 2008 11:35 AM, Jarek Gawor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Here are some of my thoughts:
>
> 1) Tests and testing. We need to write more tests especially
> functional tests as a group. I can list a number of cases where simple
> changes caused things to break but we didn't find out about it until a
> few weeks later. I'm not talking about very complicated tests, just
> simple tests to verify the component is still functioning right.
>
> 2) Samples. Like Donald mentioned, take better care of them and
> release them with each new G release.
>
> 3) Reacting to user questions. Create/update documentation (e.g. FAQ)
> as soon as the same question is posted twice on the user mailing list.
>
> 4) Leverage GShell. Write more useful GShell commands to automate or
> reduce the number of manual configuration steps to configure Geronimo
> for something. One example: creating/managing G instances.
>
> Jarek
>
> On Feb 7, 2008 9:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> > achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> > (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).
>  Now
> > that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing
> what we
> > want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must"
> do
> > to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of
> us to
> > use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items
> some of
> > us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> > what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > ++Vamsi
> >
> >
>

I completely agree with Jarek's #4.  GShell has a lot of potential.  We need
to unleash that potential.

Personally, I'd like to see enhancement of usability for creating/deploying
plugins.  I recently ran into
an issue where it was difficult to port a plugin from one system to another
due to dependencies and the
way the plugin installer works (command line).

~Jason Warner

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jarek Gawor]

Here are some of my thoughts:

1) Tests and testing. We need to write more tests especially
functional tests as a group. I can list a number of cases where simple
changes caused things to break but we didn't find out about it until a
few weeks later. I'm not talking about very complicated tests, just
simple tests to verify the component is still functioning right.

2) Samples. Like Donald mentioned, take better care of them and
release them with each new G release.

3) Reacting to user questions. Create/update documentation (e.g. FAQ)
as soon as the same question is posted twice on the user mailing list.

4) Leverage GShell. Write more useful GShell commands to automate or
reduce the number of manual configuration steps to configure Geronimo
for something. One example: creating/managing G instances.

Jarek

On Feb 7, 2008 9:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now
> that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing what we
> want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must" do
> to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of us to
> use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some of
> us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ++Vamsi
>
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

On Feb 10, 2008 11:29 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 9, 2008 12:02 PM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 2008 6:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> > > achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> > > (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).
> >  Now
> > > that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing
> > what we
> > > want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we
> > "must" do
> > > to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of
> > us to
> > > use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items
> > some of
> > > us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can
> > see
> > > what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
> >
> > We certainly need more exposure in the tools area and having a
> > Geronimo NetBeans plugin is a way to go. Eclipse one's fine, but we
> > need to bring Geronimo to NetBeans masses and let them know there's
> > another application server with a name that starts with G which is
> > worth paying attention to as well.
> >
> > Documentation, documentation and no need to say more but documentation
> > is an absolute must.
>
> In most cases, we have an associated JIRA for a new feature or a major bug
> fix.  How about we designate the JIRA as resolved only after the related
> documentation is in place?  Many a time we verify the code before closing
> the JIRA.  It shouldn't be hard adding a wiki page with a small write up on
> how to use that feature or any work around provided.  It can be a detailed
> document or an entry in an FAQ.  This will also help in coming up with
> comprehensive docs after a release.
>

My +1 too. Good practice.


>
>
> >
> >
> > Jacek
> >
> > --
> > Jacek Laskowski
> > http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
> >
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

On Feb 8, 2008 3:22 PM, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What is the point in having geronimo specific annotations? AFAIK there
> is a mappedName attribute in the javaEE annotations which can be used
> for mapping to server specific resource names. Is this completely
> implemented in G? Probably someone with more knowledge on this than me
> can comment :).

Is mappedName alone sufficient to specify all of Geronimo specific
deployment information? We might need new (G specific) annotations to
specify what cannot be specified with mappedName. Again I too am not sure of
the specifics and let people more knowledgeable comment on this.


> Regarding plan creator I can contribute to getting it completed.
>
:) Thanks much for offering to help.


>
> Regards
> Manu
>
> On Feb 8, 2008 2:00 PM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
> > i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo" mail from
> > Prasad in Nov'07
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
> >  ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
> >  iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in
> Jul'07
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html
> >
> > Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see
> getting
> > into Geronimo in 2008:
> > 1) Deployment Environment:
> > a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo Eclipse
> Plugin)
> > for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other Geronimo deployment plans.
> >  b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the
> specification
> > of Geronimo deployment information, right at development time.
> >
> > 2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
> > a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
> >  Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every update to
> > Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to generate new EMF
> classes.
> > If however, GEP uses the same model framework as that of Geronimo server
> > (XMLBeans), then at least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88
> > DConfigBeans would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case
> even
> > if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP would be
> unaffected.
> >  b) Critical bug fixes
> > c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
> >  d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
> > The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an Axis
> > engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server such as
> Tomcat.
> > However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo as it already has a
> > global web services engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's
> behavior
> > must be customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
> >  e) Better Remote server support
> > f) Testsuite Automation
> > g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.
> >
> > 3) Admin Console Tools:
> > a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that spits
> out a
> > server with just what is needed for a set of apps and nothing else.
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
> >  b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial clustering
> > solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat clustering, a
> terracotta
> > integration, and many others. A cluster admin tool would be of great
> help in
> > the setting-up and fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.
> >
> > I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and it is
> > still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those features, God
> alone
> > knows when I will complete them. Any takers/collaborators?
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> > achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> > (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).
>  Now
> > that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing
> what we
> > want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must"
> do
> > to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of
> us to
> > use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items
> some of
> > us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> > what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > ++Vamsi
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Shiva
>



-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

On Feb 8, 2008 2:09 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 3a is implemented in 2.1
>
Is there an admin console page for this already implemented?


>
> Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I think a very
> strong argument can be made for moving the deployer code to jaxb.
>
Interesting!! Let me do some quick learning of jaxb and start a separate
thread on this.


>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
>
> I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
> i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo" mail from
> Prasad in Nov'07
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
> ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
> iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in Jul'07
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html
>
> Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see getting
> into Geronimo in 2008:
> 1) Deployment Environment:
> a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo Eclipse
> Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other Geronimo deployment
> plans.
> b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the
> specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at development time.
>
> 2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
> a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
> Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every update to
> Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to generate new EMF classes.
> If however, GEP uses the same model framework as that of Geronimo server
> (XMLBeans), then at least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88
> DConfigBeans would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case even
> if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.
> b) Critical bug fixes
> c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
> d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
> The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an Axis
> engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server such as Tomcat.
> However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo as it already has a
> global web services engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's behavior
> must be customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
> e) Better Remote server support
> f) Testsuite Automation
> g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.
>
> 3) Admin Console Tools:
> a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that spits out
> a server with just what is needed for a set of apps and nothing else.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
> b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial clustering
> solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat clustering, a terracotta
> integration, and many others. A cluster admin tool would be of great help in
> the setting-up and fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.
>
> I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and it is
> still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those features, God alone
> knows when I will complete them. Any takers/collaborators?
>
> On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> > achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 (
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now
> > that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing
> > what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we
> > "must" do to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like
> > all of us to use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action
> > items some of us may have already come up with silently) so that the
> > community can see what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > ++Vamsi
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Shiva
>
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Vamsavardhana Reddy]

I hope to summarize the input collected on this thread in a few days.  Let
us introduce some practices that we would love everybody to follow, but as
always it is up to the individual.

++Vamsi

On Feb 10, 2008 11:33 PM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Feb 10, 2008 9:59 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >  In most cases, we have an associated JIRA for a new feature or a major
> bug
> > fix.  How about we designate the JIRA as resolved only after the related
> > documentation is in place?  Many a time we verify the code before
> closing
> > the JIRA.  It shouldn't be hard adding a wiki page with a small write up
> on
> > how to use that feature or any work around provided.  It can be a
> detailed
> > document or an entry in an FAQ.  This will also help in coming up with
> > comprehensive docs after a release.
>
> +1. It's a rule to describe new stuff on the mailing list so it's easy
> to pick it up and put it on the Wiki.
>
> Will you document it somewhere? ;-)
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jacek Laskowski]

On Feb 10, 2008 9:59 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  In most cases, we have an associated JIRA for a new feature or a major bug
> fix.  How about we designate the JIRA as resolved only after the related
> documentation is in place?  Many a time we verify the code before closing
> the JIRA.  It shouldn't be hard adding a wiki page with a small write up on
> how to use that feature or any work around provided.  It can be a detailed
> document or an entry in an FAQ.  This will also help in coming up with
> comprehensive docs after a release.

+1. It's a rule to describe new stuff on the mailing list so it's easy
to pick it up and put it on the Wiki.

Will you document it somewhere? ;-)

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Vamsavardhana Reddy]

On Feb 9, 2008 12:02 PM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2008 6:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> > achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> > (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).
>  Now
> > that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing
> what we
> > want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must"
> do
> > to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of
> us to
> > use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items
> some of
> > us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> > what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
>
> We certainly need more exposure in the tools area and having a
> Geronimo NetBeans plugin is a way to go. Eclipse one's fine, but we
> need to bring Geronimo to NetBeans masses and let them know there's
> another application server with a name that starts with G which is
> worth paying attention to as well.
>
> Documentation, documentation and no need to say more but documentation
> is an absolute must.

In most cases, we have an associated JIRA for a new feature or a major bug
fix.  How about we designate the JIRA as resolved only after the related
documentation is in place?  Many a time we verify the code before closing
the JIRA.  It shouldn't be hard adding a wiki page with a small write up on
how to use that feature or any work around provided.  It can be a detailed
document or an entry in an FAQ.  This will also help in coming up with
comprehensive docs after a release.


>
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Jacek Laskowski]

On Feb 7, 2008 6:58 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now
> that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing what we
> want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must" do
> to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of us to
> use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some of
> us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.

We certainly need more exposure in the tools area and having a
Geronimo NetBeans plugin is a way to go. Eclipse one's fine, but we
need to bring Geronimo to NetBeans masses and let them know there's
another application server with a name that starts with G which is
worth paying attention to as well.

Documentation, documentation and no need to say more but documentation
is an absolute must.

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Gianny Damour]

On 09/02/2008, at 12:43 AM, Donald Woods wrote:


Agree with 1a, all of #2 and 3b.

- Creating documentation when new features go into svn instead as  
an after thought when we are trying to close out a release.


- Samples become a prerequisite of each new release.

- Project mentoring - have several of us pick another open source  
project to either enable them to run on Geronimo out-of-the-box or  
create a plugin out of their application (much like has been done  
for Liferay and Roller.)  This could be the start of a "Ready for  
Geronimo" page on our website, where we list known apps and  
frameworks (like Spring and Hibernate) that can be readily used  
with Geronimo, with a page on each in our docs on installation/ 
setup and known working versions for a given Geronimo release.


- Full support for running on Java SE 6

- Portlet for controlling logging levels at a component/package level

- Continued work on enable full clustering of all components


Hello Donald,

Could you please list the top two components you would like to see  
clustered?


Thanks,
Gianny



- Start providing previews of upcoming Java EE 6 technologies


-Donald

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Donald Woods]

Agree with 1a, all of #2 and 3b.

- Creating documentation when new features go into svn instead as an 
after thought when we are trying to close out a release.


- Samples become a prerequisite of each new release.

- Project mentoring - have several of us pick another open source 
project to either enable them to run on Geronimo out-of-the-box or 
create a plugin out of their application (much like has been done for 
Liferay and Roller.)  This could be the start of a "Ready for Geronimo" 
page on our website, where we list known apps and frameworks (like 
Spring and Hibernate) that can be readily used with Geronimo, with a 
page on each in our docs on installation/setup and known working 
versions for a given Geronimo release.


- Full support for running on Java SE 6

- Portlet for controlling logging levels at a component/package level

- Continued work on enable full clustering of all components

- Start providing previews of upcoming Java EE 6 technologies


-Donald

Shiva Kumar H R wrote:

I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo" mail from 
Prasad in Nov'07 
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07 
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in 
Jul'07 http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html


Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see 
getting into Geronimo in 2008:

1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo Eclipse 
Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other Geronimo 
deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the 
specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at development time.


2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every update to 
Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to generate new EMF 
classes. If however, GEP uses the same model framework as that of 
Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at least this problem would be solved. 
IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in 
that case even if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP 
would be unaffected.

b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an Axis 
engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server such as 
Tomcat. However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo as it already 
has a global web services engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's 
behavior must be customized when deploying onto Geronimo.

e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that spits 
out a server with just what is needed for a set of apps and nothing 
else. http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial clustering 
solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat clustering, a 
terracotta integration, and many others. A cluster admin tool would be 
of great help in the setting-up and fine-tuning of those clustering 
solutions.


I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and it is 
still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those features, God 
alone knows when I will complete them. Any takers/collaborators?


On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html). 
Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start

discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also
discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo an application server of
choice.  I would like all of us to use this mail thread to put forth
our thoughts (and any action items some of us may have already come
up with silently) so that the community can see what great heights
Geronimo will scale in 2008.

Thank you.

++Vamsi




--
Thanks,
Shiva


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Vamsavardhana Reddy]

My picks:

1. Documentation:  I want to see more users attracted to use Geronimo and
documentation definitely plays a very important role.
2. Security: GBean permissions, better handling of passwords

++Vamsi

On Feb 7, 2008 9:46 PM, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey Vamsi,
> great start, here are two things I would like to see some discussion
> around.
>
> - increase focus on improving usability and
> - treat documentation as any other module/component of the project. Having
> it complete should be a condition for any major release.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
>
> Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> > achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> > (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).
> > Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing
> > what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what
> > we "must" do to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would
> > like all of us to use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and
> > any action items some of us may have already come up with silently) so
> > that the community can see what great heights Geronimo will scale in
> 2008.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > ++Vamsi
> >
>

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Manu George]

What is the point in having geronimo specific annotations? AFAIK there
is a mappedName attribute in the javaEE annotations which can be used
for mapping to server specific resource names. Is this completely
implemented in G? Probably someone with more knowledge on this than me
can comment :).

Regarding plan creator I can contribute to getting it completed.

Regards
Manu

On Feb 8, 2008 2:00 PM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
> i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo" mail from
> Prasad in Nov'07
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
>  ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
>  iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in Jul'07
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html
>
> Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see getting
> into Geronimo in 2008:
> 1) Deployment Environment:
> a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo Eclipse Plugin)
> for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other Geronimo deployment plans.
>  b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the specification
> of Geronimo deployment information, right at development time.
>
> 2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
> a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
>  Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every update to
> Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to generate new EMF classes.
> If however, GEP uses the same model framework as that of Geronimo server
> (XMLBeans), then at least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88
> DConfigBeans would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case even
> if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.
>  b) Critical bug fixes
> c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
>  d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
> The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an Axis
> engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server such as Tomcat.
> However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo as it already has a
> global web services engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's behavior
> must be customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
>  e) Better Remote server support
> f) Testsuite Automation
> g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.
>
> 3) Admin Console Tools:
> a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that spits out a
> server with just what is needed for a set of apps and nothing else.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
>  b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial clustering
> solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat clustering, a terracotta
> integration, and many others. A cluster admin tool would be of great help in
> the setting-up and fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.
>
> I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and it is
> still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those features, God alone
> knows when I will complete them. Any takers/collaborators?
>
>
>
>  On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now
> that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing what we
> want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must" do
> to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of us to
> use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some of
> us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > ++Vamsi
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[David Jencks]

3a is implemented in 2.1

Despite my liking for xmlbeans and its unique strengths I think a  
very strong argument can be made for moving the deployer code to jaxb.


thanks
david jencks

On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:30 AM, Shiva Kumar H R wrote:


I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo" mail  
from Prasad in Nov'07 http://www.mail-archive.com/ 
dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07 http:// 
www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in  
Jul'07 http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg48173.html


Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see  
getting into Geronimo in 2008:

1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo Eclipse  
Plugin) for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other Geronimo  
deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the  
specification of Geronimo deployment information, right at  
development time.


2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every update  
to Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to generate new  
EMF classes. If however, GEP uses the same model framework as that  
of Geronimo server (XMLBeans), then at least this problem would be  
solved. IIUC JSR-88 DConfigBeans would be the ideal model framework  
for GEP - in that case even if the model framework of server  
changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.

b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an  
Axis engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server  
such as Tomcat. However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo  
as it already has a global web services engine deployed. Hence web  
services wizard's behavior must be customized when deploying onto  
Geronimo.

e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that  
spits out a server with just what is needed for a set of apps and  
nothing else. http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/ 
msg54849.html
b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial  
clustering solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat  
clustering, a terracotta integration, and many others. A cluster  
admin tool would be of great help in the setting-up and fine-tuning  
of those clustering solutions.


I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and  
it is still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those  
features, God alone knows when I will complete them. Any takers/ 
collaborators?


On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our  
achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 (http:// 
www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now  
that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start  
discussing what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us  
also discuss what we "must" do to make Geronimo an application  
server of choice.  I would like all of us to use this mail thread  
to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some of us may have  
already come up with silently) so that the community can see what  
great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.


Thank you.

++Vamsi




--
Thanks,
Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Shiva Kumar H R]

I can immediately remember 3 prior discussions in reference to this:
i) "[DISCUSS/FEEDBACK] Usability improvements to Geronimo" mail from
Prasad in Nov'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg53236.html
ii) "[Discuss] What next?" mail from DJencks in Aug'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg50660.html
iii) "[DISCUSS] Geronimo 2.1 - what's next?" mail from Matt in Jul'07
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg48173.html

Alright, here is my wish list - features that I would love to see getting
into Geronimo in 2008:
1) Deployment Environment:
a) Plan Creator wizards (in Admin Console & in Geronimo Eclipse Plugin)
for geronimo-application.xml and *many* other Geronimo deployment plans.
b) Geronimo specific annotations: To further simplify the specification
of Geronimo deployment information, right at development time.

2) Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in (GEP):
a) Model framework for Geronimo deployment plans:
Currently it is EMF (Eclipse Modeling Framework). With every update to
Geronimo deployment schema, it's a major pain to generate new EMF classes.
If however, GEP uses the same model framework as that of Geronimo server
(XMLBeans), then at least this problem would be solved. IIUC JSR-88
DConfigBeans would be the ideal model framework for GEP - in that case even
if the model framework of server changes in future, GEP would be unaffected.
b) Critical bug fixes
c) Make "Download and Install" option more intuitive
d) Customize Web Services Wizard:
The default implementation of WTP's web services wizard embeds an Axis
engine inside a web-app and then deploys it in a web server such as Tomcat.
However this isn't the right approach for Geronimo as it already has a
global web services engine deployed. Hence web services wizard's behavior
must be customized when deploying onto Geronimo.
e) Better Remote server support
f) Testsuite Automation
g) Integrating JavaEE Samples.

3) Admin Console Tools:
a) Server Build Tool: For instance, a "button" to push that spits out a
server with just what is needed for a set of apps and nothing else.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54849.html
b) Cluster Admin Tools: Geronimo has a lot of partial clustering
solutions. For instance there's WADI, native tomcat clustering, a terracotta
integration, and many others. A cluster admin tool would be of great help in
the setting-up and fine-tuning of those clustering solutions.

I am stuck in 1) a) Plan Creator work for the past year or so and it is
still not complete! So if I alone work on many of those features, God alone
knows when I will complete them. Any takers/collaborators?

On Feb 7, 2008 8:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our
> achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 (
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  Now
> that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing what
> we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what we "must"
> do to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would like all of us
> to use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and any action items some
> of us may have already come up with silently) so that the community can see
> what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ++Vamsi
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Shiva

Re: Geronimo in year 2008

[Hernan Cunico]

Hey Vamsi,
great start, here are two things I would like to see some discussion around.

- increase focus on improving usability and
- treat documentation as any other module/component of the project. Having it 
complete should be a condition for any major release.

Cheers!
Hernan


Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:

Hello,

Geronimo had a great year 2007.  I don't need to re-list all our 
achievements listed in Matt's mail from 31st Dec 2007 
(http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg54994.html).  
Now that 2.1 is also rolling out, I think it is time we start discussing 
what we want to do in Geronimo in year 2008.  Let us also discuss what 
we "must" do to make Geronimo an application server of choice.  I would 
like all of us to use this mail thread to put forth our thoughts (and 
any action items some of us may have already come up with silently) so 
that the community can see what great heights Geronimo will scale in 2008.


Thank you.

++Vamsi