RE: [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server Runtime and Server Instance

[Ted Bashor]

So I see three broad functions of a runtime implementation, not all of which are required of course: 1) filter for project creation/configuration 2) project classpath provider 3) configuring run/debug   I agree that users would be well served if the various runtime wizards and the runtime preferences panels better linked/integrated #3 with #1 & #2.  For runtimes such as Tomcat and JBoss, there may be no reason to have a separate “New Server” wizard – i.e. adding a new runtime definition automatically results in a new node in Servers view, and there’s no UI for adding additional servers corresponding to that runtime definition.   However, I have two reservations about the proposal. 1) I think Servers view should continue to be strictly for testing/debugging purposes.  I think trying to add management of non-runnable runtime nodes would be confusing and unnecessary - the preferences dialog runtime list seems sufficient. 2) I don’t think WTP API (or UI) needs to, or should, assume there will always be either a one-to-one or one-to-zero relationship between “runtime type” and “runnable server”.  If a particular vendor wishes to implement a one-to-many user experience, the api should not inhibit it.   -Ted   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:03 PM To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. Subject: [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server Runtime and Server Instance   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:   The runtime is supposed to be a full description of the server, including its capabilities (which facets are supported). While that is true in some cases, often the actual server configuration is necessary in order to get the complete understanding of what’s supported. See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=111545 for one example of this. Having to create and maintain separate lists of runtimes and servers has shown to be confusing for users. Extra steps are necessary. The user has to know about the preferences page for managing runtimes and the servers view for managing servers. Often there is confusion as to which one you are talking about. People use terms server and runtime interchangeably, etc. Some runtimes (such as Tomcat) do not have additional server configuration, in which case the extra step of creating a server from a runtime is very unnecessary.   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?   I want to just write code. I haven’t created a server and I don’t want to create one. I will worry about running/debugging later. The above proposal leaves this in the hands of runtime providers. If creating a server instance configuration is not trivial, the new runtime wizard should let the user opt out of that. The end result would be an un-runnable runtime that the user can still develop against. I don’t want to have to specify the location of my server install every time I create a new server instance. This can easily be handled in the runtime creation wizards by remembering the prior selections in an editable combo box.   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. _______________________________________________________________________ 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
wtp-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev