s and their goals in that note.
references:
[1] http://www.nabble.com/Micro-G-td6490485s134.html#a6490485
[2] http://www.nabble.com/micro-G-modules(configs)-td6669533s134.html
[3]
http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--to-plugin-or-not-to-plugin%2C-that-is-the-question-td12410749s134.html
[4]
h
was part of thread [2]. Matt has a great summary of the types
of users and their goals in that note.
references:
[1] http://www.nabble.com/Micro-G-td6490485s134.html#a6490485
[2] http://www.nabble.com/micro-G-modules(configs)-td6669533s134.html
[3]
http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--to-plugin-o
framework
would actually the "new" minimal.
Cheers!
Hernan
Joe Bohn wrote:
Hernan Cunico wrote:
I saw several times the term micro-g as well as geronimo framework
(or just framework) used indifferently as synonymous.
I'm trying to standardize the term in the docs and would hel
would not be as representative anymore since the
Geronimo framework would actually the "new" minimal.
Cheers!
Hernan
Joe Bohn wrote:
Hernan Cunico wrote:
I saw several times the term micro-g as well as geronimo framework (or
just framework) used indifferently as synonymous.
I'm trying
Hernan Cunico wrote:
I saw several times the term micro-g as well as geronimo framework (or
just framework) used indifferently as synonymous.
I'm trying to standardize the term in the docs and would help a lot if
we agree to call it the same way.
If no one oppose I'll propose w
I saw several times the term micro-g as well as geronimo framework (or just
framework) used indifferently as synonymous.
I'm trying to standardize the term in the docs and would help a lot if we agree to call it the same way.
If no one oppose I'll propose we stick to "Geronim
On 10/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, should I put these ideas on the cwiki for discussion /
clarification? It sounds that this is the general direction we're
headed in and is rather unique. If we agree in concept it would be
good to get our web page updated to reflect t
On Oct 9, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 10/5/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Online-deployer is empty just like the rest of the configs that are
servers. It relies on manifest classpath and the configuration it
contains. IIRC online-deployer.car is the same file as
de
On 10/5/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Online-deployer is empty just like the rest of the configs that are
servers. It relies on manifest classpath and the configuration it
contains. IIRC online-deployer.car is the same file as
deployer.jar. I guess you're right that a little more
the casual user would pick up directly. I image
that we would still ship the full j2ee assembly and possibly even
the minimal assembly. Micro-G would be available for more
sophisticated users that wanted to build a custom image and for
vendors who might pick up Micro-G, build their own custom i
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 10/5/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The following modules are currently included in micro-G.
What of these should we attempt to remove yet from micro-G?
Where are we heading with Micro-G? Do we want to strip off all
modules, but those that
On 10/5/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The following modules are currently included in micro-G.
What of these should we attempt to remove yet from micro-G?
Where are we heading with Micro-G? Do we want to strip off all
modules, but those that let us download plugins and enhan
hand
in order to ever have more than "Micro G" (ick).
Anyway, I would also be in favor of separating the specs from RMI
naming.
So let me see if I understand the idea here. I can pull the spec
dependencies from RMI naming and create a new config with just those
dependencies. I susp
tool. Without this, I think
you'll have to mangle the repository contents and config.xml by hand
in order to ever have more than "Micro G" (ick).
Anyway, I would also be in favor of separating the specs from RMI
naming.
Thanks,
Aaron
P.S. Maybe we should whack the online-
angle the repository contents and config.xml by hand
in order to ever have more than "Micro G" (ick).
Anyway, I would also be in favor of separating the specs from RMI naming.
Thanks,
Aaron
P.S. Maybe we should whack the online-deployer module and rename
"j2ee-security&qu
Joe Bohn wrote:
The following modules are currently included in micro-G.
What of these should we attempt to remove yet from micro-G?
X connector-deployer
geronimo-gbean-deployer
X hot-deployer
X j2ee-deployer
X j2ee-security
X j2ee-server
j2ee-system
X online-deployer
rmi-naming
X sharedlib
shutdown
The following modules are currently included in micro-G.
What of these should we attempt to remove yet from micro-G?
connector-deployer
geronimo-gbean-deployer
hot-deployer
j2ee-deployer
j2ee-security
j2ee-server
j2ee-system
online-deployer
rmi-naming
sharedlib
shutdown
transaction
unavailable
You're absolutely right Jacek. Actually, I think the name is one of the
things still open for debate. However, once it is settled we need to
use it consistently.
I've been using micro-G as a nickname just as we used little-G to refer
to the geronimo-jetty/tomcat-minimal assemblie
On 9/26/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The initial commit is out there with rev. 449892.
Thanks Joe for your work. The only thing I'm not happy with is that we
call it - Micro-G - whereas it's geronimo-framework in repository. I
think that it may confuse our users a
ployer\src\main\resources\META-INF\geronimo-plugin.xml
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 449892.
Joe Bohn wrote:
I've done some work on a new assembly that I've nicknamed "Micro-G" (I
know .. not very creative). The name that I'm using unde
What I have now is dependent upon geronimo-boilerplate-minimal (same as
the minimal tomcat assembly which I cloned and used as a starting point).
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
How is this new assembly going to work with the boilerplates?
--jason
On Sep 25, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
I
How is this new assembly going to work with the boilerplates?
--jason
On Sep 25, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
I didn't create a branch earlier because I didn't have experience
doing that and thought I'd just start to play with my local build
(I know, not a good excuse but it's the t
+1. Go for it.
-- dims
On 9/25/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I didn't create a branch earlier because I didn't have experience doing
that and thought I'd just start to play with my local build (I know, not
a good excuse but it's the truth).
I was just getting to the point where I fi
I didn't create a branch earlier because I didn't have experience doing
that and thought I'd just start to play with my local build (I know, not
a good excuse but it's the truth).
I was just getting to the point where I figured I should either create a
branch or provide a patch for RTC when
Sweeet... we need a new logo
Since its new I'm happy to look at it after you commit it.
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/25/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So far, I've been doing this on my local image. I would like to get
this code (incomplete as it currently is) checked into trunk to better
manage the changes and to share the effort. Is this considered a
"controversial change"? Should I first
I'd like to see the changes. I think CTR is fine. Tomcat config
update seems like the right thing, anyway.
--kevan
--- Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've done some work on a new assembly that I've nicknamed "Micro-G"
> (I
> know .. not very creative). The name that I'm using under
> geronimo/assemblies is "geronimo-framework". This
On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
I've done some work on a new assembly that I've nicknamed "Micro-
G" (I know .. not very creative). The name that I'm using under
geronimo/assemblies is "geronimo-framework". This is intended to
be a new f
Yes...commit it...this is a great foundation for SOA and ESBs (no web
container needed).
Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> I've done some work on a new assembly that I've nicknamed "Micro-G" (I
> know .. not very creative). The name that I'm using under
> geronimo/assem
I've done some work on a new assembly that I've nicknamed "Micro-G" (I
know .. not very creative). The name that I'm using under
geronimo/assemblies is "geronimo-framework". This is intended to be a
new foundational assembly from which any customized G
31 matches
Mail list logo
