On Jan 25, 2010, at 1:35 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2010, at 6:41 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > >> We should be putting some thought on what the Geronimo deliverables are in >> the web profile world. I think for the most part, this should be just a >> different assembly that assembles a smaller set of components. The one >> additional configuration that is probably going to be needed is an EJB Lite >> configuration that would be used by the Web Profile assembly. This should >> not be a big delta over what we have, but it does increase the number of >> assemblies that we end up releasing. Are there other options we should be >> working at? > > I think we might already have too many assemblies :-) > > Ideally when the osgi integration settles down we will have an even better > way than in 2.2 for extending a framework server or assembling custom > servers. I'm cautiously in favor of making the "minimal" tomcat and jetty > servers support the web profile and having smaller servers be custom > assemblies or based on the framework server.
Agreed that we don't want 2 additional assemblies. Replacing the "minimal" servers with "web profile" equivalents seems reasonable to me. I think users would find it convenient if an assembly could contain multiple configuration files. A full EE6 assembly could be invoked with a framework, minimal, web profile, or full EE6 configuration. Similarly, a web profile could contain framework and minimal configurations, also. --kevan
