My 2c is that I prefer Matt's idea of grouping the server specific
directories beneath a "servers" directory. As a new user exploring
the directory structure I would find that intuitive. But I'm hesitant
to base my position solely on this empathetic gut feel because I'm
wondering which parts of this discussion bump up against the
clustering decisions for Geronimo 1.2, especially w.r.t. vertical
clustering. Maybe this discussion will end up driving the clustering
decisions, but maybe vice versa.
My other 2c (making my contribution come to a grand total of 4 cents,
wow!! can I go home now?) is that tomcat and jetty have already paved
the way for at least part of this discussion. For example, in the
tomcat 5.5.12 distribution there's a section of RUNNING.txt devoted to
configuring multiple instances of tomcat. In the interest of making a
transition from those environments go as smoothly as possible we
should adopt any pieces of their approach that can fit.
Best wishes,
Paul
p.s. my favorite bikeshed color is Blue. No, yello... :-)
On 5/18/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm fine for leaving the code in 1.1 to play with but I'm -1 in promoting it in
1.1. This should be
a 1.2 item. One of the reasons we end up making disruptive changes later in
the release is we don't
have time to think this through and we'll be unhappy with the answer and end up
tweaking it next time.
That said, for 1.2 this is really needed as clustering will probably take
shape. I'd prefer to
start the discussion now and finish it in 1.2. Here's my 2c.
geronimo/servers/default
geronimo/servers/foo
geronimo/servers/server1
geronimo/servers/server2
A major grouping off of Geronimo makes sense so we can group servers together.
It would make sense
to me to leave geronimo/var as the legacy, single server and the above as the
clustered convention.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> All,
>
> David Jencks just backported a feature that lets you create multiple
> server configurations inside a single Geronimo installation. This
> affects the contents of the var/ directory, if I understand it right.
> So essentially, you could create a structure like this:
>
> geronimo/var/... (default configuration)
> geronimo/server1/var/... ("server1" configuration)
> geronimo/another/var/... ("another" configuration)
>
> In other words, you can create subdirectories with their own copies of
> var/* and then tell Geronimo during startup to read from foo/var/*
> instead of var/* using a command-line parameter.
>
> I'd like to propose one change to this, and that is, that we eliminate
> the "var" directory and set it up one of these two ways -- the
> difference being whether the default server configuration is named
> something like "default" or named "var":
>
> Option 1: default configuration named "var":
> geronimo/var/... (default configuration)
> geronimo/server1/... ("server1" configuration)
> geronimo/another/... ("another" configuration)
>
> Option 2: default configuration named e.g. "default":
> geronimo/default/... (default configuration)
> geronimo/server1/... ("server1" configuration)
> geronimo/another/... ("another" configuration)
>
> It seems somewhat more usable to me if, for example, the log directory
> is immediately underneath the server configuration directory. For
> anyone who's not real UNIX-oriented, I think it will be much nicer to
> look in the configuration directory and see config/ log/ security/ etc
> instead of just seeing "var".
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
>
>
