Re: Web Console - JVM portlet
Joe Bohn wrote, On 8/3/2005 5:58 AM: Do we need this type of detail about the JVM in an administrative portlet (see the JVM portlet under Server)? This seems to be a bit over the top. IMO this is especially true when listing the details on the OS, Sun (will this even work if we're not using the sun?) User, and Etc sections. I think this is all really useful data for us and possibly even for people building a server from the components of Geronimo. However, for the average user that is just going to pick up Geronimo, do some minor configuration, and deploy applications this seems a bit overwhelming. Also, it has been my experience that more extraneous information is not always a good thing to have which can easily be ignored. Some users look at this and decide that the server is too complicated for their needs. Perhaps it would be better to reference this information during initialization and save it off to a file for reference when debugging a problem. Thoughts? I don't see how it could hurt, even for unsophisticated users. It's not like we're making them go to that page, right? Regards, Alan
Re: Web Console - JVM portlet
I think the more information availble the better. I haven't looked at the page but perhaps we can organize it a bit better. Matt - Original Message - From: Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 1:07 PM Subject: Re: Web Console - JVM portlet Joe Bohn wrote, On 8/3/2005 5:58 AM: Do we need this type of detail about the JVM in an administrative portlet (see the JVM portlet under Server)? This seems to be a bit over the top. IMO this is especially true when listing the details on the OS, Sun (will this even work if we're not using the sun?) User, and Etc sections. I think this is all really useful data for us and possibly even for people building a server from the components of Geronimo. However, for the average user that is just going to pick up Geronimo, do some minor configuration, and deploy applications this seems a bit overwhelming. Also, it has been my experience that more extraneous information is not always a good thing to have which can easily be ignored. Some users look at this and decide that the server is too complicated for their needs. Perhaps it would be better to reference this information during initialization and save it off to a file for reference when debugging a problem. Thoughts? I don't see how it could hurt, even for unsophisticated users. It's not like we're making them go to that page, right? Regards, Alan
Re: Web Console - JVM portlet
Matt Hogstrom wrote: I think the more information availble the better. I haven't looked at the page but perhaps we can organize it a bit better. How about renaming it to System Properties as that seems to be what it contains and then breaking the monolithic page down into one sub-page per section (e.g. Java, Sun (derived from JVM vendor id), Other) It would also help if the foramtting had a generic way of identifying paths and breaking them down by line. -- Jeremy
Re: Web Console - JVM portlet
Jeremy Boynes wrote: Matt Hogstrom wrote: I think the more information availble the better. I haven't looked at the page but perhaps we can organize it a bit better. How about renaming it to System Properties as that seems to be what it contains and then breaking the monolithic page down into one sub-page per section (e.g. Java, Sun (derived from JVM vendor id), Other) It would also help if the foramtting had a generic way of identifying paths and breaking them down by line. I like this approach. Where the information is available its better to expose it in the event it will be used. The classpaths themselves are useful but I agree on super long one is kind of ugly. Organization is better than elimination. -- Jeremy
