|
The runtime provider would define as many
runtime components as needed to accurately model all of their server’s available
capabilities. Then, when the new runtime wizard runs, the runtime provider would
configure the runtime definition with the appropriate runtime components for
that server’s actual capabilities. The runtime definition (along with the
list of specified runtime components) would then be stored in the workspace
metadata. We can also make the generation of the runtime components list be
more dynamic, but that comes with a price of forcing early loading of the
runtime provider’s plugin containing the delegate class... - Konstantin From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marshall Culpepper +1 On 3/1/06, Konstantin
Komissarchik < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: Currently
the server tools framework has a separate notion of runtime and a server.
Typically, the runtime is supposed to represent the server install location,
while server instance supposed to represent an actual runnable server
configuration. The runtime then functions almost like a factory for server
instances. You can have any number (including zero) of server instances
associated with a runtime. While that separation can be a good thing in some
situations, it's has turned out to be in a problem in others. In particular:
I'd
like to propose that the server runtime and server instance be merged into one.
I believe we can do that without detriment to the use cases that gave rise to
the separation. We can do that by allowing a runtime to also (optionally) be a
server. That is, all servers would be runtimes, but not all runtimes would be
servers. When creating a runtime via the new runtime wizard, the runtime
provider will have full flexibility in determining whether the runtime that's
created is a server or not. Some runtime providers (such as Tomcat) may always
create servers. Others, such WebLogic, may do that optionally based on user's
input. For instance, if the user specifies just the WebLogic install location,
then the created runtime would not be a server, but if the user also provides
the domain configuration directory, then the runtime becomes a startable server.
A project can be targeted to either one for development, but only the latter
one can be used to run/debug the app. This approach places a lot of flexibility
in the hands of the runtime providers. It's conceivable that some may even
allow a runtime that's not a server to be "converted" into a server
by specifying additional information. The
users would manage the list of runtimes via a new Runtimes workbench view. The
view would be extensible, allowing the server tools framework to plug in and
mark those runtimes that are servers with decorations and additional actions,
such as start, stop, and status monitoring. This would replace the dedicated
Servers view. At
the api level, IRuntime would be adaptable to IServer (as applicable) and
IServer would be adaptable to IRuntime (always). The server tools would
maintain the markers that indicate which runtimes are servers and surface this
via api for use by the runtime providers. This would not be surfaced to the end
user via UI. So
how would we handle use cases that drove to the separation of the runtime and
the server?
Thoughts? -
Konstantin _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. |
_______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
