Another aspect of the current approach is related to security. The console in the default configuration runs on the standard http port and uses just basic authentication. That's as reliable as the promise of a politician. It's a risk to expose G directly to a public network but I don't like to run an apache server in front of it just to protect console from external access. Therefore either an non webapp as admin function or an own special http server.
Heinz On 9/19/06, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You raise an excellent point, which is that all that functionality in the console doesn't do much good if the server won't start. I also really like your idea that the console should be able to run in a server with a minimalistic configuration. To me this is analogous to booting an operating system in recovery mode so you can make repairs using the console before rebooting in normal mode. I think this could be accomplished by providing a specialized config, say var/config/minimal-config.xml, that would get loaded if you passed a special flag to geronimo.sh. The console is not currently implemented in such a way that would allow this because it uses Geronimo's dependency system to gain the level of access it needs to administer a module. e.g. its deployment plan has a dependency against geronimo-activemq-gbean so that it can manage ActiveMQ. As a result ActiveMQ needs to be running before the console can start But with all the excitement around Little G and modularizing the server via plugins we've been talking about changing this so that the console can manage incremental bits of function. As part of that effort I think that we definitely need to support the use case you have brought to our attention -- recovery mode. Best wishes, Paul On 9/19/06, Heinz Drews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris, > > I agree that with Ajax sufficient functionality can be provided in a webapp. > My primary argument for a rich client would be as I have said before > that a webapp requires a running server. And what should be done if > there are problems in the configuration which prevents that the server > starts? > > The console webapp should at least run in a seperate server with > minimalistic configuration. > Something which I would prefer anyhow instead of the current situation in G. > > Heinz > > On 9/19/06, Christopher M. Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think this idea can be explored but we should give the current > > initiative to include Ajax functionality to the console a shot first. > > There's no doubt that rich clients have their advantages over web apps > > (performance and sophisticated widgets to name a few) but I think we > > have a potential in Ajax to close this gap. It would be nice to get more > > comments on this. What do others think? > > > > > > Jason Dillon wrote: > > > Anyone have any thoughts on using Swing for the console... instead of > > > a webapp (which are kinda evil IMO)... and then using webstart to > > > serve it? Maybe using Netbeans (or that license not ASL friendly)? > > > I've done some work with NB before at it would be very easy to create > > > a rich user experience... and its easy to drop in new modules to > > > support different aspects of administration and monitoring. > > > > > > I dunno.. just a thought... > > > > > > --jason > > > > > > > >
