On Nov 22, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Nov 22, 2005, at 1:35 PM, David Jencks wrote:
To me the biggest problem here is still backwards compatibility and
if/how we can support it. Dain suggested (privately) that we might
have a conversion table for our configids so that an old plan would
still deploy. This is possible but really ugly. I will look into
just how ugly :-) I'd certainly appreciate any other opinions on how
serious a problem this is and what we can do about it.
Now to more specific responses:
On Nov 18, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I assume it will be the case that the configId declaration in the
file
will therefore control which repository location the CAR is installed
in -- so if you change the configId, it changes the install location.
Is that correct?
well, maybe. The packaging plugin is the only way currently to get a
car file into a maven-like repository, and it only uses the actual
maven repository at the moment. The identity of path inside the
maven repo and configId is currently a convention, but IMO a really
good one. I'd like to see if a packed-car repository config-store
works, but I doubt I'll have time to try it before 1.0.
I think using the maven repo path for the configId is problematic.
The layout of the repository will change over time, and is actually
completely repository dependent. We have already seen a change
between maven 1 and maven 2. I would prefer that the ID follow the
maven single line notation for an artifact.
groupId:artifactId:version:type[:classifier]
In this case, we don't need a classifier and we can always assume type
is "car", so we will end up with something like:
org.apache.geronimo:j2ee-server:1.0
which I think is a lot cleaner then the m1 and m2 paths, as doesn't
repeat information:
org.apache.geronimo./cars/geronimo-j2ee-server-1.0.car
org/apache/geronimo/geronimo-j2ee-server/1.0/geronimo-j2ee-server
-1.0.car
Does that seem reasonable?
I like that a lot. I have been wondering how to extract the pieces of
the repo path back out of the configId.
Here are my issues:
- It's a pretty significant change for the "last gasp before 1.0".
I
would *really* prefer to hold off on this so we have some time to
think it through and work with it a bit longer before committing to
it
as the future, but I'm afraid that you won't deliver separate
Jetty/Tomcat builds without it. What do you think?
Right, for me this is a requirement for separate jetty/tomcat builds.
I think this is one of the things we address now, or defer until
Geronimo 2.0, whenever that is.
- I want to make sure that application configIds or configIds for
services created by the user (e.g. database pools, security realms)
can still be anything at all ("foo") and don't have to follow the
Maven style naming. Further, I don't think that not using
Maven-style
configIds for your application should limit your capabilities in any
way (no, "can't deploy to a cluster if you can't use the packaging
plugin if you didn't use Maven-style configIds" or anything like
that)
AFAIK we don't have clustering yet... there's nothing stopping you
from using whatever badly thought out :-) configIds you want, but I
think we should encourage people to use configIds with systematic and
useful info in them -- i.e. the maven style ones.
Well if we want to use maven artifact to manage our repository, we are
going to need a groupId, artifactId and a version. We could simply
make groupId and vendorId equal what ever random string the user give
us and make the version a time stamp. I think it would be better if
the deployment tool prompted for the groupId and artifactId if there
wasn't a geronimo plan in the archive, but it isn't necessary.
I like this too, especially if someone else implements it:-)
thanks
david jencks
-dain
