On Nov 24, 2005, at 11:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would work just as well for me would be to be able to check in a
skeleton
and then deploy the plans the first time I build and deploy the
application. I am even willing
to copy all the files over, as long as I am not checking them in.
I'm not sure what you mean by "checking them in", could you be more
specific?
If I can help it I will not check in things which can be derived from
other things. For example, your config-store
can be derived from the plans (and I am not sure what else.) The
dependencies are third-party jars, etc.
I think you are doing this already when you build geronimo using
maven. I just have to find out what steps
to take between compiling and starting the server. Can I just blow
away config-store and then deploy the
plans I want?
Geronimo is extremely modular, and almost all the configuration pieces
are in the config-store. So if you remove the contents of the
config-store you will have almost nothing left.
To see my idea of how geronimo should be assembled, look at the configs
and assemblies directories. The directories under configs each build
one configuration and store it in the local maven repository. The
directories under assemblies assemble a set of configurations specified
in the project.xml into a geronimo server. I think this is the best
approach for constructing anything but the most standard server.
However, it is not entirely done. For instance, I haven't figured out
a reasonable replacement for deployer.jar.
The output of an assemblies module is a geronimo server in a zip file
in your local maven repo. As noted, you can include pretty much
anything you want in it, including j2ee applications. To install, you
just unzip it and run.
Is it possible to use this, perhaps:
java -jar deployer.jar deploy <plan> <file>
That works. I think using one of the maven-based approaches is much
easier and more development-process-friendly. One of these is the
configs/assemblies approach noted above. You might look at the trade
app in the sandbox, in the derby module, for an alternate maven based
deployment approach.
Hope this helps, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking about this
time :-)
david jencks
Guglielmo
David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/24/2005 11:28 AM
Please respond to user
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Multiple geronimo instances with little
disk usage
This is not supported yet, but it definitely should be.
The idea is that everything except the var directory is shared between
server instances, and each instance has its own var directory. So,
there are several gbeans with paths into the var directory: several
are
in the j2ee-system plan. Some other gbeans in plans such as
system-database and activemq-broker also store stuff in var. The
major
problem at the moment is that most of these gbeans are in the system
plan which is loaded before the config.xml file, so there is no
opportunity to replace the "var" with the location of your choice.
Unfortunately this means you have to build a whole set of
configurations for each server, since the name of the base config is
going to be different.
Does anyone have a good idea how to make this work with only a single
set of configurations? one possibility would be to have ServerInfo
know where the var directory is, all gbeans that use var ask
ServerInfo
where it is, and have ServerInfo read it from a system property. Then
you could set the var location on the command line. You can already
set the config.xml on the command line, although this might not be
needed if the var location could be set. The only disadvantage I've
thought of with this plan is that it builds the concept of the var
directory into geronimo in a much more fundamental way than it is now.
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 24, 2005, at 11:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would like to do this:
>
> 1) Unpack the geronimo distribution under /usr/local/geronimo (say)
> and make it read-only.
>
> 2) Create many small _instances_ of geronimo running on all
different
> (sets of) ports, on the same machine.
> I would like the _code_ to be in one place, but the configurations
of
> the instances to all be different.
>
> Basically a lot like tomcat.
>
> Thanks
> Guglielmo
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> <<>>
>
> In compliance with applicable rules and regulations, Instinet
> reviews and archives incoming and outgoing email communications,
> copies of which may be produced at the request of regulators.
> This message is intended only for the personal and confidential
> use of the recipients named above. If the reader of this email
> is not the intended recipient, you have received this email in
> error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
> please notify the sender immediately by return email and
> permanently delete the copy you received.
>
> Instinet accepts no liability for any content contained in the
> email, or any errors or omissions arising as a result of email
> transmission. Any opinions contained in this email constitute
> the sender's best judgment at this time and are subject to change
> without notice. Instinet does not make recommendations of a
> particular security and the information contained in this email
> should not be considered as a recommendation, an offer or a
> solicitation of an offer to buy and sell securities.
>
> *****************************************************************
