-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Arentz wrote:
| On May 27, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
|
|> Stefan brings up the question of whether we want to release sub-
|> modules of Geronimo separately. I think this is a good idea and would
|> propose the following restructure of the tree to move in this direction.
|
|
| Let me just explain my motivation a bit, maybe that will also help for
| the plan.
|
| In my original email I said something about not needing all the J2EE
| stuff. I exaggerated a bit of course, but most of the applications that
| I have been writing in the last couple of years are done mostly with a
| subset of the whole J2EE umbrella. Some apps were just some network
| service wrapped in (JMX) beans, a service exposed with Spring (Burlap,
| XML-RPC) other apps were simply a web app backed by a shared Spring
| context. I've never needed all the stuff in J2EE.
|
| So far I've always done this on JBoss. Their MBean stuff works ok, but
| I wish it was easier to 'downsize' jboss to just a container with the
| stuff I need. That never really seemed to be their goal however. The
| complexity of their configuration files shows that.
|
| So, what I would really like to see wrt Geronimo is an absolute minimal
| server with add-on packages for things like a web container, jms
| provider, etc. You want to host a web app? Throw in the Tomcat or Jetty
| personality. Need JMS too, add ActiveMQ. Persistence? Simply add a
| hibernate deployer. Mix and match so that it does what your app needs.
|
| This is where Geronimo could shine and even take away a large chunk of
| Tomcat; most people just want to deploy their web app and optionally
| add some more services without having to understand a full J2EE stack.
| Geronimo can fill that void extremely well I think. (Simple Web
| Container .. <VOID> .. J2EE Monolith)
|
| Ok so just complaining doesn't work well for this project, so what I
| really would like to do is start figuring out how I can give Geronimo
| 'personalities' for popular combinations of technology. Like,
|
| - Geronimo Kernel + Tomcat + JSTL2.0 + Spring + Hibernate
| - Geronimo Kernel + Web Services
| - Geronimo Kernel + JMX Enabled custom network service
|
| and then do some writing about it on the wiki. Make recipes for people,
| or even complete packages that are downloadable.
|
| I really think this is how Geronimo can also get acceptance with a much
| larger crowd.
|
| S.
|
I'm not a committer, nor have I been more than an observer to what
Geronimo is doing and where it's going - primarily because everything
I've seen has placed it in the JBoss realm. I've used JBoss for quite a
while and am always amazed at the functionality it has ingrained in it
for which I just have no use. Most of my time spent upgrading is in
finding out how to turn things off that have changed.
This message caught my attention. For the first time, I've seen that I'm
not the only person who things this might be a good idea. I don't want
the world in a server - I just want to be able to add the pieces if/when
I need them to an existing server. This is something JBoss bypasses
entirely... you want to be able to add the pieces? voila - they're added
- - enjoy - whether you wanted them all 'built-in' or not.
I do think this will lead to greater adoption by new users (as well as
those others who want what I do - "the minimal server to do the job,
with expansion capabilities"), as well as greater 'user questions' ("Why
do I get this error?" "Because you don't have the Web Services package
installed/configured"). Questions can be documented all over the place
and users will still come to the mailing list and ask. That, however,
IMHO, is much better than those users already having a "monolith" and
sticking with it rather than move to a Geronimo "monolith" (monolith
used here not in a single application of monolithic proportions, but the
server with mandated functionality that, even when disabled, is still
taking up space). And I'm a firm believer that "it's on the Wiki" isn't
a substitute for good documentation included in the product - it's an
added method of documentation.
As for the pre-packaged versions - I think this would, indeed, be a boon
to Geronimo - - - as long as the individual 'services' were packaged for
some sort of 'drop-in deployment' into an existing Geronimo server as well.
My thoughts...
Brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCl2YbaCoPKRow/gARAnMNAJ9gxTlKzzp3pRHfd8i2GfQfvl8aIACgru71
6+OCdlthfHuBXTqUKB8JSR8=
=/uYw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
