Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Jeff Genender wrote: Joe Bohn wrote: I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-) So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? I think this is the root of your miscommunication/disagreement: the decision to choose a web container has to stem not only from an understanding of what a web container is, but also from an evaluation of the relative merits of both. That is, Joe User may know from Servlets 101 what a web container provides, but he may not be aware of what this choice entails. Of course such worries could be mitigated by a blurb in this particular installer page that mentions that both are OK, etc. In the end, I think that not having a default choice (whatever that may be) is a rather loud acknowledgment of a fear to have the debate and make a choice :-) Cheers, Panagiotis
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 05:49:59PM -0700, Jeff Genender wrote: So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? The issue is whether they'll have enough knowledge of the pros and cons of Jetty versus Tomcat to make an informed decision between them. And what of the naive users that don't know or care what a web container is? I recognize that this is a tough decision to make, but I don't think it's a good idea to punt it onto each user that wants to use Geronimo.
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
How about something like dual-boot systems. If you don't pick a container fast enough, one will be chosen for you! We will be giving the user the choice, but also making a decision which will be installed by default. Cheers! Anita --- Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe Bohn wrote: I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-) So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? Joe On 12/8/05, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user. It would be even better if the installer in a Choose Your Web Container page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that provided information that would help them make an informed decision. See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314 John Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Does there need to be a default web container?
I feel this debate is like do you like Coke or Pepsi? People will be more biased about the web container they use most of the time (forget about merits/demerits of each app) I think it's kind of useless to be arguing about this since both tomcat and jetty is available. So ppl will always choose to modify the config to have the container they like most. (This would have been an important debate, if we were going to include only one (either tomcat or jetty), but since both are included it doesn't really matter) Instead we should use the time to put more documentation on how you can change the web container. I think a lot of people will appreciate that. Just my 2 cents Rajith. -Original Message- From: Jeff Genender [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 12:54 AM To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Does there need to be a default web container? Thats a great idea... Kinda like Google's I'm feeling lucky ;-) Matt Hogstrom wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1 X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1 I think the magic G-ball should be embedded in the installer and let it make a random choice for the user :) The answer is It is decidedly so. Matt Jeff Genender wrote: Then lets agree to disagree. We should probably take this offline if it needs to be discussed further. This is kind of off-topic. Jeff Aaron Mulder wrote: Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer. About the best I could say is they both work fine in Geronimo, they do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much built the Tomcat integration on our own. Still, that doesn't give you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most* informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users. I don't think it's sensible to argue over what average people know or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever installs the product to make that same decision. Thanks, Aaron On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erin Mulder wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? It's possible. I asked average user...not whether its possible. The average user will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is. The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards. There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their install experience. I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many experienced *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should have a minimal understanding of web containers. Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server before they get around to learning what a web container is. The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community decide. Cheers, Erin
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
My Magic G-Ball comment aside I'll throw my 2c into the debate. First, the decision we make today is not binding for all time. Also, I appreciate Joe's comment about simplicity but the reality is J2EE has a steep learning curve and as much as I would like to see Joe's mom download the server and get cracking I doubt she has much use for a J2EE server to post recipes or pictures of her grandchildren on the web. PHP or Ruby would be easier I think :) I appreciate that Tomcat is an Apache Foundation project and we want to taker that into consideration. Since my involvement in the project though I think the Jetty team has been more actively involved in Geronimo in terms of responding to questions and making changes. Jeff has been doing a great job at making sure Tomcat is a first class citizen as well. I may be wrong but the Jetty community seems to be more active in G. That said, I suggest we put some text in the installer that gives some context to why a customer would want to choose one over the other. Indicate that Geronimo works equally well with either WebContainer and that what we are providing is a choice for them to meet their specific needs. I would prefer to have a default checked and lean toward Jetty. Regardless of which one is chosen I think the Installer should have some text to guide the user to making a decision and we should be clear about the Openness of Geronimo in allowing choice, providing information to make a decision and provide a default so Joe's mom can get cracking. Matt Panagiotis Astithas wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: Joe Bohn wrote: I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-) So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? I think this is the root of your miscommunication/disagreement: the decision to choose a web container has to stem not only from an understanding of what a web container is, but also from an evaluation of the relative merits of both. That is, Joe User may know from Servlets 101 what a web container provides, but he may not be aware of what this choice entails. Of course such worries could be mitigated by a blurb in this particular installer page that mentions that both are OK, etc. In the end, I think that not having a default choice (whatever that may be) is a rather loud acknowledgment of a fear to have the debate and make a choice :-) Cheers, Panagiotis
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
IMHO, its over and set in stone. I would have liked that we examined what the community wanted and tallied the vote based on our user base, but unfortunately this is not my decision. Vote count: Jetty Tomcat --- Geronimo Committers 12 4 Users 611 --- 1815 I may choose to disagree at the level of activity of Tomcat vs Jetty in Geronimo over the last year, and could very well be proven wrong by empirical evidence...but yes my nose has been knee deep in Tomcat, so its likely my views may be jaded. There is no doubt that someone's feelings are going to get hurt, whether it's Greg's or mine, as we both stepped up and delivered our products and got them certified. But at the end of the day...what counts is we offer both and that is most important. Jeff Matt Hogstrom wrote: My Magic G-Ball comment aside I'll throw my 2c into the debate. First, the decision we make today is not binding for all time. Also, I appreciate Joe's comment about simplicity but the reality is J2EE has a steep learning curve and as much as I would like to see Joe's mom download the server and get cracking I doubt she has much use for a J2EE server to post recipes or pictures of her grandchildren on the web. PHP or Ruby would be easier I think :) I appreciate that Tomcat is an Apache Foundation project and we want to taker that into consideration. Since my involvement in the project though I think the Jetty team has been more actively involved in Geronimo in terms of responding to questions and making changes. Jeff has been doing a great job at making sure Tomcat is a first class citizen as well. I may be wrong but the Jetty community seems to be more active in G. That said, I suggest we put some text in the installer that gives some context to why a customer would want to choose one over the other. Indicate that Geronimo works equally well with either WebContainer and that what we are providing is a choice for them to meet their specific needs. I would prefer to have a default checked and lean toward Jetty. Regardless of which one is chosen I think the Installer should have some text to guide the user to making a decision and we should be clear about the Openness of Geronimo in allowing choice, providing information to make a decision and provide a default so Joe's mom can get cracking. Matt Panagiotis Astithas wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: Joe Bohn wrote: I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-) So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? I think this is the root of your miscommunication/disagreement: the decision to choose a web container has to stem not only from an understanding of what a web container is, but also from an evaluation of the relative merits of both. That is, Joe User may know from Servlets 101 what a web container provides, but he may not be aware of what this choice entails. Of course such worries could be mitigated by a blurb in this particular installer page that mentions that both are OK, etc. In the end, I think that not having a default choice (whatever that may be) is a rather loud acknowledgment of a fear to have the debate and make a choice :-) Cheers, Panagiotis
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Guarana! On Dec 9, 2005, at 11:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: I feel this debate is like do you like Coke or Pepsi? People will be more biased about the web container they use most of the time (forget about merits/demerits of each app) I think it's kind of useless to be arguing about this since both tomcat and jetty is available. So ppl will always choose to modify the config to have the container they like most. (This would have been an important debate, if we were going to include only one (either tomcat or jetty), but since both are included it doesn't really matter) Instead we should use the time to put more documentation on how you can change the web container. I think a lot of people will appreciate that. Just my 2 cents Rajith. -Original Message- From: Jeff Genender [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 12:54 AM To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Does there need to be a default web container? Thats a great idea... Kinda like Google's I'm feeling lucky ;-) Matt Hogstrom wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1 X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1 I think the magic G-ball should be embedded in the installer and let it make a random choice for the user :) The answer is It is decidedly so. Matt Jeff Genender wrote: Then lets agree to disagree. We should probably take this offline if it needs to be discussed further. This is kind of off-topic. Jeff Aaron Mulder wrote: Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer. About the best I could say is they both work fine in Geronimo, they do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much built the Tomcat integration on our own. Still, that doesn't give you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most* informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users. I don't think it's sensible to argue over what average people know or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever installs the product to make that same decision. Thanks, Aaron On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erin Mulder wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? It's possible. I asked average user...not whether its possible. The average user will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is. The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards. There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their install experience. I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many experienced *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should have a minimal understanding of web containers. Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server before they get around to learning what a web container is. The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community decide. Cheers, Erin -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
+1 Jeff Genender wrote: But at the end of the day...what counts is we offer both and that is most important. That's the most important thing. Greg Wilkins wrote: So long as all our efforts are acknowledge and no disrespect is shown, we should be able to do this without hurt feelings. Healthy competition between the containers will only improve them both and so long as we don't involve our users in container-wars then it should be good for all. More documentation explaining the 2 containers and how you can change your setting during installation or after will benefit everybody. This will avoid a Coke vs Pepsi war within the user community !!! Regards, Rajith. -Original Message- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Wilkins Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 2:11 PM To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Does there need to be a default web container? Guys, I've updated the FAQ with an entry that I think helps explain the duality. http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/FrequentlyAskedQuestions Jeff (and others) can you check that this is a fair description. I've also started work on the general jetty in geronimo documentation to get it up to the standard that Jeff has for tomcat. Jeff Genender wrote: There is no doubt that someone's feelings are going to get hurt, whether it's Greg's or mine, as we both stepped up and delivered our products and got them certified. But at the end of the day...what counts is we offer both and that is most important. +1. So long as all our efforts are acknowledge and no disrespect is shown, we should be able to do this without hurt feelings. Healthy competition between the containers will only improve them both and so long as we don't involve our users in container-wars then it should be good for all. I may choose to disagree at the level of activity of Tomcat vs Jetty in Geronimo over the last year, and could very well be proven wrong by empirical evidence...but yes my nose has been knee deep in Tomcat, so its likely my views may be jaded. It is true that we have been moderately quiet on Geronimo lists themselves, but we have been working on Jetty 6, which has largely been motivated by creating a container that is even more suited to being embedded in Geronimo with improved support of G- threadpools, interceptors etc. cheers
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Greg, Thanks for taking care of the wiki entries. It looks great. Jeff Greg Wilkins wrote: Guys, I've updated the FAQ with an entry that I think helps explain the duality. http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/FrequentlyAskedQuestions Jeff (and others) can you check that this is a fair description. I've also started work on the general jetty in geronimo documentation to get it up to the standard that Jeff has for tomcat. Jeff Genender wrote: There is no doubt that someone's feelings are going to get hurt, whether it's Greg's or mine, as we both stepped up and delivered our products and got them certified. But at the end of the day...what counts is we offer both and that is most important. +1. So long as all our efforts are acknowledge and no disrespect is shown, we should be able to do this without hurt feelings. Healthy competition between the containers will only improve them both and so long as we don't involve our users in container-wars then it should be good for all. I may choose to disagree at the level of activity of Tomcat vs Jetty in Geronimo over the last year, and could very well be proven wrong by empirical evidence...but yes my nose has been knee deep in Tomcat, so its likely my views may be jaded. It is true that we have been moderately quiet on Geronimo lists themselves, but we have been working on Jetty 6, which has largely been motivated by creating a container that is even more suited to being embedded in Geronimo with improved support of G- threadpools, interceptors etc. cheers
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
+1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user. It would be even better if the installer in a Choose Your Web Container page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that provided information that would help them make an informed decision. See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314 John Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Also if one container is in some way better than another today, that may not be the case in the future. Once we have a default, it will be hard to change in the future. Not having a default also provides a fair playing field for those who are contributing to the project and encourages competition. Let the user decide. John Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
I hate to say it, but from a usability perspective, I think we need to have a default. Otherwise, when installing Geronimo, the first thing the user has to do is make a decision that most users really have no basis for making. Granted a Wiki link would help, but I think we need to provide a 0-decision install path where you can essentially just click through and something good will happen. At the end of the day, I wish we could avoid the politics, and I definitely don't think we need to present this as an official Geronimo preference. Any documentation referenced can start out by saying either one will work fine and we fully support both (and the TAR/ZIP download page should say the same). Still, I would really prefer to have a pre-selected default on the install screen when it comes up. Thanks, Aaron On 12/8/05, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user. It would be even better if the installer in a Choose Your Web Container page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that provided information that would help them make an informed decision. See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314 John Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
I'd also prefer the choice too be left to the user +1 -bd- On Dec 8, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
I may have phrased the original issue badly. The installer has both Jetty and Tomcat as options to install on the main pack selection page. It was decided that because of the complexity of installing two web containers that we should not install both, but allow the operator to select one or the other. In M5, the installer actually allowed both containers to be configured, but did not have a way to validate the ports selected. When configured correctly with no conflicting ports, both containers will start. There's some goofiness with offlineDeployer and runtimeDeployer since one of the containers will win the config.xml entries if more than one is selected -- looks like Tomcat wins. For 1.0, both containers will be listed on the first selection screen. However, it didn't make sense to default both to install when the plan was to only allow one. Allowing both requires the installer to validate the ports and ensure that the operator does not configure both containers to the same port. This problem exists for other port types as well, but is less likely to be a problem. IzPack does not support this inter-panel validation easily i.e. through normal XML based configuration. It requires that java code be built to extend the user input panels. On the other hand, limiting the operator to one web container is no panacea either. To effectively do this, I have configured the XML to set Jetty as the default to install (Tomcat can be selected) since it's confusing to do otherwise in this scenario (although the default could just as easily be Tomcat and it looks like the vote is going that way). This effectively starts down a good path for this scenario, but the operator can easily select both containers again. To stop this, I will extend a userinput panel to be invoked to check that both are selected and not allow the install to proceed past the first userinput screen -- the first screen after the major component selection. This again requires java code since IzPack does not have a parameter to apply to packs such as exclusiveOf( packName ). This is interesting since it does have depends( packname ) which allows us to require the Tomcat container when installing the Tomcat console, etc. This may be more than everyone wants to know, but to answer your question, I don't see any particular reason why the installer cannot allow installation of both. However, it's very late in the 1.0 cycle and the current design is that we'd allow one or the other, but not both. I have no particular preference myself. On Thursday 08 December 2005 18:30, Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff -- Regards, Erik
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Aaron Mulder wrote: I hate to say it, but from a usability perspective, I think we need to have a default. Otherwise, when installing Geronimo, the first thing the user has to do is make a decision that most users really have no basis for making. Granted a Wiki link would help, but I think we need to provide a 0-decision install path where you can essentially just click through and something good will happen. At the end of the day, I wish we could avoid the politics, and I definitely don't think we need to present this as an official Geronimo preference. Any documentation referenced can start out by saying either one will work fine and we fully support both (and the TAR/ZIP download page should say the same). Still, I would really prefer to have a pre-selected default on the install screen when it comes up. Thanks, Aaron I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-) Joe On 12/8/05, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user. It would be even better if the installer in a Choose Your Web Container page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that provided information that would help them make an informed decision. See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314 John Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff -- Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose. -- Jim Elliot
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Joe Bohn wrote: I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-) So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? Joe On 12/8/05, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user. It would be even better if the installer in a Choose Your Web Container page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that provided information that would help them make an informed decision. See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314 John Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
-0 As I have often said, in the long run the user should not care if they are using jetty or tomcat and it was a mistake for us to expose implementation detail as we have. I have always preferred the web tier to be just called web and then in future the developers will have the option to change implementations. Just as we may change the implementation of GBeans, CORBA, EJB, JMS or any other component. I would say that perhaps the installer should not even offer the option unless it is in some advanced mode. Less is more when it comes to configuration options. If at a later time we have a debate about technical advantages and support issues and decide that tomcat is a better default - then that can be changed in a future release (or we can continue to work hard to improve Jetty to meet the requirements of the geronimo community). regards Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Jeff Genender wrote: Joe Bohn wrote: I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-) So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? I think they'll know what a web container is. I just don't think that they will initially care which web container they use the first time they install Geronimo. When they are ready to begin using Geronimo in earnest then they will take the time to decide which web container they want and if necessary the choose the non-default they can over-ride it. But for the first install I don't think most users will care. I just think that we want to make a good first impression by being easier to install then the user may have expected (which I'm currently hoping can eventually be click, click, click, done). Joe Joe On 12/8/05, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user. It would be even better if the installer in a Choose Your Web Container page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that provided information that would help them make an informed decision. See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314 John Jeff Genender wrote: This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both. May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called Choose Your Web Container and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end user choose? IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice without hinting a preference. Thoughts and comments? Jeff -- Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose. -- Jim Elliot
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Jeff Genender wrote: So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? It's possible. There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their install experience. Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server before they get around to learning what a web container is. Cheers, Erin
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Erin Mulder wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? It's possible. I asked average user...not whether its possible. The average user will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is. The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards. There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their install experience. I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many experienced *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should have a minimal understanding of web containers. Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server before they get around to learning what a web container is. The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community decide. Cheers, Erin
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer. About the best I could say is they both work fine in Geronimo, they do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much built the Tomcat integration on our own. Still, that doesn't give you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most* informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users. I don't think it's sensible to argue over what average people know or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever installs the product to make that same decision. Thanks, Aaron On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erin Mulder wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? It's possible. I asked average user...not whether its possible. The average user will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is. The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards. There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their install experience. I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many experienced *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should have a minimal understanding of web containers. Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server before they get around to learning what a web container is. The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community decide. Cheers, Erin
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Then lets agree to disagree. We should probably take this offline if it needs to be discussed further. This is kind of off-topic. Jeff Aaron Mulder wrote: Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer. About the best I could say is they both work fine in Geronimo, they do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much built the Tomcat integration on our own. Still, that doesn't give you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most* informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users. I don't think it's sensible to argue over what average people know or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever installs the product to make that same decision. Thanks, Aaron On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erin Mulder wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? It's possible. I asked average user...not whether its possible. The average user will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is. The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards. There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their install experience. I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many experienced *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should have a minimal understanding of web containers. Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server before they get around to learning what a web container is. The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community decide. Cheers, Erin
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1 X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1 I think the magic G-ball should be embedded in the installer and let it make a random choice for the user :) The answer is It is decidedly so. Matt Jeff Genender wrote: Then lets agree to disagree. We should probably take this offline if it needs to be discussed further. This is kind of off-topic. Jeff Aaron Mulder wrote: Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer. About the best I could say is they both work fine in Geronimo, they do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much built the Tomcat integration on our own. Still, that doesn't give you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most* informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users. I don't think it's sensible to argue over what average people know or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever installs the product to make that same decision. Thanks, Aaron On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erin Mulder wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web container is? It's possible. I asked average user...not whether its possible. The average user will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is. The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards. There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their install experience. I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many experienced *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should have a minimal understanding of web containers. Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server before they get around to learning what a web container is. The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community decide. Cheers, Erin
