I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework assembly
be constructed by adding plugins to the framework assembly. Just
because there has been no progress on this goal in the last year...
I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we
can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we use
the framework assembly? One scenario that comes to mind is an
installer that lays down the framework and then installs plugins on
top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal assembly
already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though, assuming the
installer could just remove the web container in the uncommon(?)
cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly could be the
base line for an installer plus double as a preconfigured assembly
that serves as the low-end for our users (i.e. no installer
required). Plus, since the minimal assembly has a web container we
could use a web UI for the installer instead of some native app
like we used to have -- actually the "installer" is more like a
plugin configurer from that point of view.
What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly
could be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very
cool btw!!) play into this discussion?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal
assembly (without even a web container) for building up a
pluggable server. However, it seems like the tide is changing to
always expect a web container in the smallest framework assembly
(ie. the minimal assemblies we already have). There's been a lot
of cool work on the pluggable console and it seems like are
heading in a direction to make this the primary interface for
building and managing the server ... but of course it requires a
web container as a minimal starting point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly and
work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies should
always include a web container?
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dwoods
Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
New Revision: 568632
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
Log:
adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/
pom.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/
assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?
rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
====================================================================
==========
--- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
(original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
<dependencies>
<dependency>
+ <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
+ <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
+ <version>${version}</version>
+ </dependency>
+
+ <dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
<artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
<version>${version}</version>
