How to assemble a server (was: Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml)
On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:13 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: David Jencks wrote: I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly be constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just because there has been no progress on this goal in the last year... I agree. That was the original vision and why the framework assembly was created. I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-) heh ... I'll bet that would work! ;-) I also agree that we're pretty close with some of the progress on the web console extensibility piece so that we can start building the assemblies from the plugins. That's actually what spawned the question again now. We'll build up assemblies from some "base" framework via plugins and collections of plugins (I and others have referred to these as templates at other times) to create our default server configurations or custom user/system assemblies. I was just wondering what the best "starting point" was for this. While a base framework without a web container is the most architecturally pure ... it might not be the most user friendly. It could be argued that it doesn't make sense to deliver to users a core framework that isn't good for anything unless something is added to it. I supposed we could hide the complexity with a template installer (or perhaps build installing the template/ plugins into server initialization on the first server start or some other "non-install" activity). That way users that just want a minimal or jee5 assembly don't have to deal directly directly with the framework. We'll have to give this some more thought. I don't see our starting point (e.g. the framework server) as limiting the preconfigured servers we distribute. Even after we have a wonderful "build your own server from plugins" tool we may well want to ship some servers where we have added a few things... such as a web container. In any case I think the main bits missing from assembly from plugins are the plugin metadata/installation being able to modify more of the files in var and in particular var/config such as all the artifact_aliases.properties and config-substitutions.properties. thanks david jencks Oh well ... you've all convinced me that it might be too soon to pull the plug on the framework assembly and it may very well still be the core assembly. Thanks to all that responded. Joe thanks david jencks On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use the framework assembly?One scenario that comes to mind is an installer that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the installer could just remove the web container in the uncommon(?) cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly could be the base line for an installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly that serves as the low-end for our users (i.e. no installer required). Plus, since the minimal assembly has a web container we could use a web UI for the installer instead of some native app like we used to have -- actually the "installer" is more like a plugin configurer from that point of view. What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly could be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very cool btw!!) play into this discussion? Best wishes, Paul On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this assembly prior to seeing this change. At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly (without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server. However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal assemblies we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction to make this the primary interface for building and managing the server ... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal starting point. So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always include a web container? Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: dwoods Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007 New Revision: 568632 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev Log: adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Modified:
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
David Jencks wrote:
I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly be
constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just because
there has been no progress on this goal in the last year...
I agree. That was the original vision and why the framework assembly
was created.
I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we can
actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
heh ... I'll bet that would work! ;-) I also agree that we're pretty
close with some of the progress on the web console extensibility piece
so that we can start building the assemblies from the plugins. That's
actually what spawned the question again now. We'll build up assemblies
from some "base" framework via plugins and collections of plugins (I and
others have referred to these as templates at other times) to create our
default server configurations or custom user/system assemblies.
I was just wondering what the best "starting point" was for this. While
a base framework without a web container is the most architecturally
pure ... it might not be the most user friendly. It could be argued
that it doesn't make sense to deliver to users a core framework that
isn't good for anything unless something is added to it. I supposed we
could hide the complexity with a template installer (or perhaps build
installing the template/plugins into server initialization on the first
server start or some other "non-install" activity). That way users that
just want a minimal or jee5 assembly don't have to deal directly
directly with the framework. We'll have to give this some more thought.
Oh well ... you've all convinced me that it might be too soon to pull
the plug on the framework assembly and it may very well still be the
core assembly. Thanks to all that responded.
Joe
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use the
framework assembly?One scenario that comes to mind is an installer
that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on top of it
for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly already seems to
fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the installer could
just remove the web container in the uncommon(?) cases where its not
needed. So the minimal assembly could be the base line for an
installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly that serves as the
low-end for our users (i.e. no installer required). Plus, since the
minimal assembly has a web container we could use a web UI for the
installer instead of some native app like we used to have -- actually
the "installer" is more like a plugin configurer from that point of view.
What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly could
be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very cool
btw!!) play into this discussion?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework
"ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this
assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
(without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal
assemblies we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the
pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction to
make this the primary interface for building and managing the server
... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal starting
point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always
include a web container?
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dwoods
Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
New Revision: 568632
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
Log:
adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
==
--- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
(original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Wed
Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
+org.apache.geronimo.assemblies
+geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
+${version}
+
+
+
org.apache.geronimo.configs
j2ee-system
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
I'm not using it. Was just fixing a Maven depends problem...
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework
"ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this
assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
(without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal assemblies
we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the pluggable
console and it seems like are heading in a direction to make this the
primary interface for building and managing the server ... but of course
it requires a web container as a minimal starting point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and work
on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always include
a web container?
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dwoods
Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
New Revision: 568632
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
Log:
adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
==
--- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
(original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Wed
Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
+org.apache.geronimo.assemblies
+geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
+${version}
+
+
+
org.apache.geronimo.configs
j2ee-system
${version}
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:52 AM, David Jencks wrote: I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly be constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just because there has been no progress on this goal in the last year... I definitely agree with your vision here. My main reservation with taking on that line of thought was, like you said, the lack of progress on the framework += customizations approach since the j2ee-installer (sorry, bad joke). To be fair though I should acknowledge that we have been just a little distracted on that JEE5 thing. :-) There are some issues like how OSGI, xbean, and spring can/should/ will affect our framework and plugin strategy, and that hurts me poor brain. Good thing we have lots of clever people contributing to this project. Now is a good time to start those discussions and set our sites on a new goal. This is one I think we can all rally around and contribute to in various ways. I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-) That just might do the trick! Best wishes, Paul
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
+1 Thanks Anita --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly > > be constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just > because there has been no progress on this goal in the last year... > > I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we > can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this > assembly. Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly
be constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just
because there has been no progress on this goal in the last year...
I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we
can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use
the framework assembly?One scenario that comes to mind is an
installer that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on
top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly
already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the
installer could just remove the web container in the uncommon(?)
cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly could be the
base line for an installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly
that serves as the low-end for our users (i.e. no installer
required). Plus, since the minimal assembly has a web container we
could use a web UI for the installer instead of some native app
like we used to have -- actually the "installer" is more like a
plugin configurer from that point of view.
What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly
could be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very
cool btw!!) play into this discussion?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal
assembly (without even a web container) for building up a
pluggable server. However, it seems like the tide is changing to
always expect a web container in the smallest framework assembly
(ie. the minimal assemblies we already have). There's been a lot
of cool work on the pluggable console and it seems like are
heading in a direction to make this the primary interface for
building and managing the server ... but of course it requires a
web container as a minimal starting point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should
always include a web container?
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dwoods
Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
New Revision: 568632
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
Log:
adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/
pom.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/
assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?
rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
==
--- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
(original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
+org.apache.geronimo.assemblies
+geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
+${version}
+
+
+
org.apache.geronimo.configs
j2ee-system
${version}
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this assembly prior to seeing this change. Can't say that I'm using it, but I wouldn't be in a rush to delete it, either. At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly (without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server. However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal assemblies we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction to make this the primary interface for building and managing the server ... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal starting point. So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always include a web container? IMO, no. The console is being extended with the same type of flexibility that the server runtime currently enjoys. This doesn't mean that console capability is a prerequisite for your server runtime... I'd like to maintain the ability to run a server without a web container... --kevan
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use
the framework assembly?One scenario that comes to mind is an
installer that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on
top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly
already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the
installer could just remove the web container in the uncommon(?)
cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly could be the
base line for an installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly
that serves as the low-end for our users (i.e. no installer
required). Plus, since the minimal assembly has a web container we
could use a web UI for the installer instead of some native app like
we used to have -- actually the "installer" is more like a plugin
configurer from that point of view.
What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly could
be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very cool
btw!!) play into this discussion?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
(without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal
assemblies we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on
the pluggable console and it seems like are heading in a direction
to make this the primary interface for building and managing the
server ... but of course it requires a web container as a minimal
starting point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should
always include a web container?
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dwoods
Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
New Revision: 568632
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
Log:
adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/
geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
=
=
--- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
(original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
+org.apache.geronimo.assemblies
+geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
+${version}
+
+
+
org.apache.geronimo.configs
j2ee-system
${version}
Re: svn commit: r568632 - /geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this framework
"ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of removing this
assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal assembly
(without even a web container) for building up a pluggable server.
However, it seems like the tide is changing to always expect a web
container in the smallest framework assembly (ie. the minimal assemblies
we already have). There's been a lot of cool work on the pluggable
console and it seems like are heading in a direction to make this the
primary interface for building and managing the server ... but of course
it requires a web container as a minimal starting point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and work
on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should always include
a web container?
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dwoods
Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
New Revision: 568632
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
Log:
adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
==
--- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml (original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml Wed Aug 22
07:47:42 2007
@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
+org.apache.geronimo.assemblies
+geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
+${version}
+
+
+
org.apache.geronimo.configs
j2ee-system
${version}
