Hi, Thanks Rick/Ivan/Jarek much for the comments so far. I agree with most of the comments. I think these are what we agreed on -
1. keep extra spec jars instead of spending time to sort them out. 2. mina, yoko are needed. 3. pluto/portal are needed. 4. openejb: going to be hard to break down to ejb-lite. don't worry about it for now. 5. ops4j, pax-loggin-api, pax-url-mvn, pax-url-wrap: not causing any issue to have them in, leave them in for now. 6. javaee management/deployment are needed. 7. web services related are ok to remove. thus I think we need to decide the following: 1. whether we keep jaspi and javamail in web profile assembly? I personally would say no, but open to opinions. 2. tranql: i cannot think of a reason why these resource adapters are needed for web profile... I can see geronimo-connector are needed but not the RAs. Maybe people who knows more about tranql could comment on this? Anything else I missed on this topic? Thanks Lin On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jarek Gawor <jga...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Lin Sun <linsun....@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> I am checking at our web profile assemblies to ensure it met the >> requirements for Java EE 6 web profile and prune the unnecessary >> artifacts. I've been mainly look at the tomcat7-javaee6-web and I >> have some comments/questions: >> >> felix core: i assume we'll always ship 2 osgi runtime? > > Yep, that's the plan. > >> connector (geronimo-connector, geronimo-connector-builder, connector >> spec): I think openejb uses connector, so we may have to keep it in. >> >> java ee management 1.1: Unchanged from Java EE 5. I assume this is >> provided by geronimo-management. Not sure if we could remove this? >> >> java ee deployment 1.2 related: Unchanged from Java EE 5. we may >> have to keep it in, to keep existing deployment work. >> >> geronimo-javamail: can we get rid of it? think the answer is yes. > > Maybe. Might be nicer to include it. > >> geronimo-jaspi: can we get rid of it? think the answer is yes. > > Maybe. Might be nicer to include it. > >> geronimo-webservices, geronimo-webservices-builder: think we could >> remove these. > > Yes, i think so. > >> geronimo-yoko, yoko: think we could remove these. >> >> spec jars: we seems to include all specs in web profile assembly. >> things that can be removed: aspic, jaxr, jaxrpc, jaxws, dims, saaj, >> ccpp? > > I don't think this is very important. A lot of specs have dependencies > on each other. So this might be a mess to sort it all out. I think we > should be able to include them all even though we don't provide all of > that functionality. At runtime an user should see an error that a > given provider is not found. > >> >> mina: think we could remove it... not sure which web profile function >> it related to. > > It's not related to web profile. It used so one can remotely login to > Karaf/Geronimo shell. So this should be totally ok. > >> ops4j, pax-loggin-api, pax-url-mvn, pax-url-wrap: think these are just >> test dependencies that were put into the assembly incorrectly. > > Again, not related to web profile. And these are used at runtime. We > need them. Expect maybe pax-url-wrap. > >> tranql: think we could remove it. >> >> openejb: anything we could do so that we can just have the ejb-lite function? >> >> pluto/portal: I assume these are needed for admin console so we need it. > > Right. Shouldn't matter for web profile. > > Jarek >
