Thanks for the ibiblio information. I'm not keen on pushing changes into IZPack at this point. The statement was more of a nod at the possibility that IZPack may not have all the capability we'd like. After looking at the documentation a little more, I see that it probably won't be necessary.
I'll plan on having the installer impose an either-or policy on web container installation. Regards, erik On Wednesday 16 November 2005 12:45, Aaron Mulder wrote: > I don't want to discourage you, but I don't think the timing will work > out too well on IzPack improvements. Their releases are pretty > infrequent and I think the main developer is on vacation at the > moment. I didn't have much luck getting other Geronimo folks > interested in using my custom hacked IzPack build, which is why it was > so nice to see 3.8.0 released. So let's make the best of what we've > got in the standard build, and perhaps keep a list of improvements > we'd like to see to IzPack in the post-Geronimo-1.0 time frame. (A > hook to validate an entire user entry screen at a time is on my list.) > > Anyway, the Maven instructions (from John Sission, sorry John) are: > > http://maven.apache.org/maven-1.x/reference/repository-upload.html > > And as for the radios, I think we should definitely enforce only 1 web > container through the installer. That will save us a whole world of > pain. If people want 2 web containers, let them take some manual > steps! > > Aaron > > On 11/16/05, Erik Daughtrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I read the "Building an Installer" wiki page. It helped me get going. > > It's getting a little crusty, but it was still very helpful. > > > > I'd be interested in the ibiblio information. Please send it along. I > > had already figured that I'd be researching this based on David's post. > > > > I'll look into the port validation issues and see if there's something > > easily done from within IZPack. I'm not averse to helping improve IZPack > > if it can help both projects and there's actually time to do the work. > > > > I am assuming I should create JIRAs for each of the issues raised. Unless > > someone disagrees, I'll do this. > > > > Regards, > > > > erik > > > > On Wednesday 16 November 2005 11:03, Aaron Mulder wrote: > > > 1) I think the standalone compiler is the only necessary JAR, and I > > > had volunterred to try to get it onto iBiblio at one point, but didn't > > > actually get around to it. It would be great if someone else could do > > > that. Someone (Jacek?) pointed me to a writeup on how to get > > > arbitrary JARs onto ibiblio, and I can pass that along if it would be > > > helpful. > > > > > > 5) I think port validation was tricky, because IIRC, each field is > > > validated independently. I don't think there's a good way to validate > > > a whole screen at a time, much less a group of ports on a group of > > > screens, some of which you may not have seen yet. If this turns out > > > to be hard, I don't think it would be the end of the world to skip it > > > for now, since presumably the user knows not to create port conflicts. > > > > > > 7) I think we could safely install all the schemas if you install J2EE > > > features, and none of the schemas otherwise. It's not quite perfect, > > > but close enough. > > > > > > The other problem we need to think about, related to the port issue, > > > is setting the default web port. If you install only Jetty or Tomcat, > > > whichever one you install should default to 8080. But if you install > > > both, they should default to different ports. I would be OK saying > > > that the installer will not install both, which would make this > > > easier, but I don't think there's that kind of exclusivity in the > > > feature selection screen. > > > > > > Then again, I haven't worked with IzPack for a while now so my > > > information may be a little out of date. :) > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > On 11/16/05, Erik Daughtrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hey David, I'll start working on these items. > > > > > > > > erik > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 16 November 2005 03:24, David Jencks wrote: > > > > > It would be good if we could get the installer working well for > > > > > 1.0. Here are some of the things I think need to happen. > > > > > > > > > > 1. The necessary izpack jars need to get into some maven repo, > > > > > preferably a public one such as ibiblio. They might be on there > > > > > way there already, otherwise we should figure out which jars are > > > > > needed and file an upload request. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Installer building should occur in its own module in assemblies. > > > > > It would be best if the installer can be built using a maven > > > > > plugin, but if that seems impractical we can use a bunch of jelly > > > > > for now. There is an izpack plugin but I think it is maven 2 only > > > > > (??). > > > > > > > > > > 3. The installer currently has a page where you check the major > > > > > features you want, and on the following pages you configure them. > > > > > This seems like a basically acceptable paradigm to me, but there is > > > > > a problem in that all the "following pages" display even if they > > > > > are empty. I've been told that moving the <createForPack> element > > > > > out one level to the panel element will fix this. > > > > > > > > > > 4. The installer currently works by installing everything in a full > > > > > geronimo install, and not starting the pieces you don't want. This > > > > > is rather unsatisfactory unless you sell disk space. The geronimo > > > > > assembly is moving to use of the packaging and assembly plugins, > > > > > and we can leverage that with the installer. What I am thinking of > > > > > is including a maven repository inside the installer jar that > > > > > includes everything from a full geronimo install with everything, > > > > > including all the .car files for the configurations. Then we can > > > > > imitate or use the assembly plugin to copy the configuration > > > > > dependencies into the install target and install the actual > > > > > configurations. > > > > > > > > > > 5. We should find a way to check that no port conflicts have been > > > > > configured. > > > > > > > > > > 6. We need to construct a config.xml file for the target install. > > > > > This could be done by adding bits associated with each > > > > > configuration, or by removing chunks from a "universal" config.xml > > > > > for the configurations we didnt' install. > > > > > > > > > > 7. Somewhat similarly, we need to include the schema files (for > > > > > human reference, they aren't used by geronimo) for the bits that > > > > > are included in the install target. This should proceed by fixing > > > > > the xmlbeans plugin to put schemas in the same place the xmlbeans > > > > > ant task does, and by extracting all such schemas from our > > > > > dependencies. This needs to be added to the assembly plugin: it is > > > > > not installer specific. > > > > > > > > > > There's probably more to do, but this is what I've thought of so > > > > > far. > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > david jencks > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Erik > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > Erik -- Regards, Erik
