Sorry for sending this message multiple times. I had some probs with gmail so I thought the message was not sent out but it actually did.
Lin On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Lin Sun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the valuable feedback. > > So basically, you are proposing to consolidate 3 options to 2 options > and provide the advanced configuration option at the end of either > option. I think it will still be useful to keep the advanced > configuration option by itself for advanced users who knows exactly > which plugins they want. This option can produce a custom server > that is not producible from other two options. > > Here is what I understand of application centric custom assembly. I > think the purpose is that the user deploys the application onto the > server and the user is satisfied with everything, then he builds a > customer server out of it. He wants to keep the assembly as small as > possible with his application running, and it is not important to the > user if he could deploy any other projects to the server. In this > case, I think it is better not to present the advanced configuration > option as it can confuse users, but it would be fine for me to provide > that if you guys disagree. > > The profile concept you proposed is like a group of functions. I > think I'd rather let users to select functions instead of providing > profiles to keep things simple, as we may not be able to suggest the > right profiles for users and some users may end up not seeing a set of > functions he desires to see in the list of profiles. > > For functional based assembly, I like what you proposed of providing > an advanced configuration at the end to add additional system modules > or application modules if desired. > > Create a local server instance is interesting... something I haven't > thought of so far. It can certainly be considered after the above > items. > > Lin > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yep, the current custom assembly portlet needs some love... >> >> I agree that there are three usage scenarios, but thinking that we could >> handle all with the same portlet. We don't want users to start down an >> "application" path only to find out that they can't add additional modules >> (like the deployers, monitoring, ...) and have to start over and use the >> advanced path. >> >> Maybe we can create a set of views that are displayed or hidden, based on >> how the user starts, like >> 1) "Create a server assembly based on a deployed application" >> - prompts user to choose from deployed application(s) (but hides system >> modules) >> - presents user with an "advanced options" link, to add other system >> modules >> 2) "Create a server assembly based on a profile" >> - prompts user to choose from a predetermined list of profiles >> - Web (our minimal assembly today) >> - Web + JMS >> - Web + EJB >> - Web + .... >> - presents user with an option to "add deployed application(s)" >> - presents user with an "advanced options" link, to add other system >> modules >> >> Also, would be nice to give the option to create a local server instance >> (sharing the same repo), along with the existing zip/tar option.... >> >> >> -Donald >> >> >> >> Lin Sun wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to enhance the assemble server portlet's usability. >>> Currently it is hard to come up with a desired custom server assembly. >>> >>> For example, I want to create a custom server that provides similar >>> function as tomcat. To do this, I picked the boilerplate-minimal, >>> tomcat and tomcat-deployer to build my custom server. However, soon I >>> found out that I am not able to deploy anything to the server, as I >>> didn't select any plugins to enable command deployer or hot deployer >>> or console deployer or gshell deployment. So I went back to the >>> assemble server portlet and I saw so many plugins related to >>> deployment, by looking at the plugins under the Deployment category- >>> >>> org.apache.geronimo.framework/upgrade-cli/2.1.2/car >>> org.apache.geronimo.framework/jsr88-cli/2.1.2/car >>> org.apache.geronimo.framework/jsr88-deploymentfactory/2.1.2/car >>> org.apache.geronimo.framework/offline-deployer/2.1.2/car >>> org.apache.geronimo.framework/online-deployer/2.1.2/car >>> org.apache.geronimo.configs/jsr88-ear-configurer/2.1.2/car >>> org.apache.geronimo.configs/jsr88-jar-configurer/2.1.2/car >>> org.apache.geronimo.configs/jsr88-rar-configurer/2.1.2/car >>> org.apache.geronimo.configs/jsr88-war-configurer/2.1.2/car >>> >>> Which one do I pick? I don't want to select any extra ones... I just >>> want to enable command line deployer for war modules. By poking >>> around the pom.xml files, I think I only need to select >>> org.apache.geronimo.framework/jsr88-cli/2.1.2/car in addition to >>> boilerplate-minimal, tomcat and tomcat-deployer. >>> >>> To improve the usability, I suggest the following: >>> >>>> From the assemble server portlet, a user can choose what type of >>> >>> customer assembly he/she wants to build: >>> >>> - Functional custom assembly >>> - Application scope custom assembly >>> - Advanced configuration >>> >>> Selecting "Function custom assembly" will lead to selection of key >>> functions of the server, and we can use the category of plugins to >>> associate functions and plugins. Instead of displaying all the >>> plugins, we group the plugins by their function(category) and display >>> the function only. I think it would be nice to see some explanation >>> of each function. For example: >>> - Geronimo Core - plugins that provide the core service of the >>> geronimo server... >>> - Web Services - plugins that provides the web service stack of the >>> geronimo server... >>> - Deployment - plugins that enables you to deploy apps onto the server... >>> ... >>> >>> If desired, users have the option to see what plugins are associated >>> with a function, such as Geronimo Core. Also, if we want to provide >>> detailed functions, we can update the category to be more accurate, >>> such as Deployment: Offline Deployment, Deployment : Command Line >>> Deployer, Deployment: Hot Deploy, etc. >>> >>> Selecting "Application scope custom assembly" will lead to selection >>> of custom applications deployed to the server. We can also warn our >>> users that the custom server may not be able to deploy anything. >>> >>> Selecting "Advanced configuration" will lead to the current assemble >>> server page that allows a user to select plugins from all the plugins >>> in local server. This assumes the user knows the plugins in local >>> server well. >>> >>> For all options, we should always display the pre-selected >>> boilerplate-minimal. >>> >>> Comments are welcome! If there is no objection, I'll start working on >>> this. >>> >>> Lin >>> >> >
