Hi Russell, My current viewpoint on gbeans is that in an osgi framework they are a bad idea since their capabilities are better expressed using osgi services and config admin. I am not all that confident that there is enough interest in actually rewriting the code in this way, but architecturally I think it is the best alternative.
For things like tomcat server.xml there's a big question of the best size of components. We originally tried to have a geronimo component (gbean) for the smallest size tomcat component, and this has caused a lot of problems including really bad impedance mismatch on component lifecycles and forcing tomcat users to learn a totally unfamiliar configuration interface. At the moment we have 2 competing configuration mechanisms, server.xml and gbeans, and I think this is too complicated and confusing. Another possibility might be to have a single tomcat service that accepts the server.xml from config admin and sets up the entire tomcat server from that. If you want to change something you edit server.xml in config admin. Farming could be handled by a distributed config admin service. I haven't looked into tomcat configuration much since I started learning about config admin and managed service factories so there might be another way to do this with less monolithic tomcat configuration but still through osgi mechanisms. What do you think? thanks david jencks On Feb 29, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote: > Are you suggesting that at some future milestone, Tomcat would no longer be > configurable with a GBean deployment? > > Is it being considered that in regards to newer versions of Tomcat, the GBean > may not be updated to incorporate newly introduced tomcat parameters? > > That would suggest that GBean configuration for Geronimo's Tomcat will become > deprecated. > > How would it be suggested that in this case Geronimo's Tomcat could be > centrally managed? Do we go back to pushing configuration files? That would > change how plugin based farms are managed. > > -RG > > > On 02/29/2012 08:56 AM, Ivan wrote: >> Yes, I agree that all the options should be documented, as you mentioned, we >> need it in many places. >> For the server.xml, I am thinking that it should be the main direction for >> the >> tomcat container configuration in the future, IMHO. >> As in the past versions, we find that those wrapper GBeans become more and >> more >> complicated for. e.g. with the new Tomcat version,some new parameters are >> introduced, and it is required to add those attributes for existing GBeans. >> From >> another side, it is really not user-friendly to configure those things with >> GBean. e.g. While configuring cluster, users may need to add a long GBean >> configurations in the config.xml, which is error proven. >> >> 2012/2/29 Russell E Glaue <rgl...@cait.org <mailto:rgl...@cait.org>> >> >> Do you think that var/catalina/server.xml should be the primary emphasis >> for >> managing the default web container? >> I think all options should be documented, but that one can be first. >> >> Geronimo can run multiple web containers, but those have to be configured >> via a GBean. So the virtual hosts would be configured similarly in these >> environments. >> >> And when Geronimo is in a Farming environment, GBean deployment will be >> the >> requirement. >> https://cwiki.apache.org/__GMOxDOC30/farming-using-__deployment.html >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/farming-using-deployment.html> >> >> I believe a GBean option for all configurations should be documented when >> possible. Then Geronimo can be configured remotely. >> >> -RG >> >> >> >> On 02/28/2012 07:28 PM, Ivan wrote: >> >> Thanks for updating this, I am wondering whether we would encourage >> the >> users to >> use the server.xml to configure virtual host, although the gbean way >> still works >> now. >> >> 2012/2/29 Russell E Glaue <rgl...@cait.org <mailto:rgl...@cait.org> >> <mailto:rgl...@cait.org <mailto:rgl...@cait.org>>> >> >> >> I am going to start working on this document for G3.0 >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/____GMOxDOC30/configuring-virtual-____host-in-tomcat.html >> >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/__GMOxDOC30/configuring-virtual-__host-in-tomcat.html> >> >> >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/__GMOxDOC30/configuring-virtual-__host-in-tomcat.html >> >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC30/configuring-virtual-host-in-tomcat.html>> >> >> In addition to updating what is there, I am going to add >> additional >> information on how to deploy a plan with the deployer to configure >> virtual >> hosts. >> >> >> Any comments/suggestions? >> >> >> I will use this plan, which I have verified works. >> - >> <module xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.____org/xml/ns/deployment-1.2 >> <http://geronimo.apache.org/__xml/ns/deployment-1.2 >> <http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/deployment-1.2>>"> >> <environment> >> <moduleId> >> <groupId>org.example.configs.____virtualhosts</groupId> >> <artifactId>virtualhost1</____artifactId> >> >> <version>1.0</version> >> <type>car</type> >> </moduleId> >> <dependencies> >> <dependency> >> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.____configs</groupId> >> <artifactId>tomcat7</____artifactId> >> >> <type>car</type> >> </dependency> >> </dependencies> >> <hidden-classes/> >> <non-overridable-classes/> >> </environment> >> <gbean name="TomcatVirtualHost_1" >> class="org.apache.geronimo.____tomcat.HostGBean"> >> <attribute >> >> >> name="className">org.apache.____catalina.core.StandardHost</____attribute> >> <attribute name="initParams">name=virtual____host1.com >> <http://virtual__host1.com> <http://virtualhost1.com> >> >> appBase= >> workDir=work</attribute> >> <reference name="Engine"> >> <name>TomcatEngine</name> >> </reference> >> </gbean> >> </module> >> - >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ivan >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ivan
