Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Sep 6, 2005, at 12:38 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I like what you have done here. Very nice work.
However, IMHO, I would be concerned in the long run of shipping Jetty
and Tomcat together. We will be accused of being too "heavy weight".
Then also, where do we draw the line of shipping everything (ie.
multiple orbs, and multiple EB containers, etc).
How about to distinct distributions, one w/ Tomcat and one w/ Jetty?
That might make it clearer and easier for users, as well as let us know
what's popular by download count.
+1...I think this is what people will be expecting.
As for the multiple orbs, multiple EJBs, etc, I think that depends on
if there is a demand and if someone steps up to do the work? I'm not
sure if we have enough info yet, as we only have this issue w/ the web
tier.
geir
Jeff
David Jencks wrote:
As part of my work on breaking up our monolithic configuration into
smaller pieces, I now have a set of configurations that modularize
jetty and tomcat into two configurations each. These can be turned
on and off individually, by means of starting with different
config.list files or by an appropriate command line. It is equally
easy to run both at once if you arrange the ports to avoid collisions.
I'm planning on cleaning this up a bit more and committing it soon
(maybe tonight). If you don't like this idea please speak up soon.
I wrote a namespace-driven switching module builder to determine if
the jetty or tomcat builder is used. It has a defaultNamespace
option which is what currently determines the target. The module
builders register themselves with the switch and supply their
namespace.
I would like to:
-- keep the current geronimo-web.xsd with its "any" based deployer
specific configuration bits
--write jetty and tomcat specific schemas that include the deployer
specific configuration directly
In this way, if you know which your target environment is, you can
write in that schema and the correct deployer will be selected
automatically. If you don't, the choice of target environment will
come from the defaultNamespace setting in the switch.
The remaining nasty point is the offline deployer, which currently
includes both the jetty and tomcat builders. I have not found a way
to configure the offline deployer to start more than one
configuration, so I have been forced to include everything in the
j2ee-deployer-plan.xml. I think we should consider if we have
progressed far enough to eliminate the offline deployer as a
separate configuration and always use the runtime deployer configs
both online and offline. There are still some classloader issues I
don't understand well enough for me to try this right now.
So, in more detail, I propose we ship:
-all the configurations, for both jetty and tomcat, installed
- 3 pairs of config.list and config.xml files that run both, only
jetty, and only tomcat
- both containers and builders running by default.
- installer stuff that lets you pick which option you want installed.
thanks
david jencks
