On Nov 22, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I don't understand why people are using "repository" and
"config-store" interchangeably.
Right now the config-store used in geronimo happens to not relate the
configId and the file location. I'm interested to see what happens if
I implement a config-store that stores the configs in a (geronimo)
repository. However, the geronimo classes certainly have different
methods and functions.
My understanding of "repository" is that it's "where third-party
libraries are stored". A URI into the repository works like maven by
convention because that's how we've chosen to lay out our repository.
But for our file system repository implementation, we could also just
put stuff in "any old place" under the repository root, and then the
URI's would have to look like not-Maven-style in order to work.
So, the URIs for our standard repository follow the maven convention,
although other choices are possible. We could equally well insist that
the configIds follow a maven convention, although other choices are
possible. Also, to perhaps nitpick, "third-party" is perhaps not quite
accurate, all of geronimo is there too :-).
My understanding of "config-store" is where all the code and config
info for a particular deployed server configuration is stored. We
specifically avoid any knowledge of how things are laid out within the
config store by using abstract names to identify the entries there
(though in practice, our current implementation stores entries in
sequentially numbered directories).
Yes, and we could, if we chose to, by convention, use maven style
configIds, put the configs in a maven repo structure. This is
certainly not the only choice, but I believe it offers many advantages.
One is that it provides some advice on how to construct a configId.
My understanding of "packaged configurations" is "you take whatever's
in config-store/22 and zip it" -- now you have a "packaged
configuration" or "CAR" and the repository was never involved. If you
want to move that to a different server, you pass the ZIP/CAR to the
other server, it picks the next available config-store ID (say, 44)
and unzips the thing into config-store/44. Again, no repository
involved.
To me you are confusing one way of constructing a packaged
configuration with the concept itself. I think it's a jar file with a
serialized gbean data for a Configuration gbean in a particular
location inside. You are also dragging in many implementation
artifacts of our current LocalConfigStore which are irrelevant to its
purpose or interface-defined functioning. I think there are errors in
the current interface that obscure its functioning and tie it
unnecessarily to a file system implementation. Certainly the
directory-numbering is pretty irrelevant to its functioning.
So my view of a configId is it's the abstract/human-readable name used
to interact with the thing that the config-store knows of as
"config-store/22" on server 1 and "config-store/44" on server 2. If
we put a name or version or whatever in the configId that's OK, but it
doesn't correspond to anything on the file system, it's just part of
the chunk of text that identifies that entry in the config-store. In
particular, tying the human names of entries in the config-store to
the layout of files in the repository seems unnatural to me.
I think it is all what conventions we want to support and encourage. I
think maven style config ids have numerous advantages, most of which
are the same advantages of using them for your projects jar files
rather than the random names and missing versions so prevalent outside
maven-influenced projects. In particular, more or less forcing people
to include a version number in the configId can only be a good thing.
So, we could implement un-maven-like repositories and config-stores,
but why would we encourage such rampant disorganization?
I'm not sure I'm getting your point.... have you tried building
geronimo with the packaging and assembly plugins and looking at how it
works? I've been somewhat influenced by that, and I might not be
seeing the same things you are.
thanks
david jencks
Help!
Thanks,
Aaron
On 11/22/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
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.
-dain
