How to handle the Web Profile subset
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? Rick
Re: How to handle the Web Profile subset
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. thanks david jencks Rick
Re: How to handle the Web Profile subset
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
