On Feb 14, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I like the idea, but he devil is in the details. Before we move
forward, I'd like to look that devil in he eyes.
Indeed. I don't understand what this would give anyone except a more
complicated build structure. What I think would be substantially
more useful and not introduce any more build complexity is a
dependency diagram so you could easily see the answer to the
question, if I include module/configuration X what do I need to make
it work? Right now I think you can answer this my making an assembly
that includes X and seeing what you get in it but a picture would be
a lot easier to think about.
Part of this is that I pretty much regard anything above the kernel
as optional... in particular connectors, transaction manager,
security, and naming. We just haven't succeeded in actually making
them optional yet.
thanks
david jencks
-dain
On Feb 13, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
What would folks think of (in principle, not right now) splitting out
the core Geronimo components from anything that wraps a 3rd-party
product/project? So have one area for modules like kernel, security,
core, system, etc. and a separate area for modules like Jetty,
Tomcat,
ActiveMQ, Directory, jUDDI, etc. I guess mainly to draw the
distinction between what's really part of the infrastructure and
what's really "optional packages" that can be added on top (and I'm
talking about "optional" in a non-J2EE-server sense where you start
with literally nothing but the infrastructure and add only waht you
want, or something like that). So we'd still pull a lot of that in
for our "J2EE" builds, but it would make a clearer distinction for
anyone who wanted a more custom build.
Thanks,
Aaron
