The following is an email I sent to Danny Angus and the James PMC last
Friday. I look forward to hearing responses to this plan.
On 7/8/05, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Anne,
>
> Can you confirm that your proposal has been accepted by Google Summer of Code?
>
> If so can you provide
You are right about that, but this might be a good point to start
diverging from phoenix if it is to go away eventually.
What is the word on the permanence of phoenix (SpringJames / JamesNG )?
What source should i use to start the decoupling of the administration
commands using xwork?
On Tue, 2
> From previous suggestions and discussions the best fit would
> seem to be
> Jetty. But Noel mentioned that we might not want to include
> the app server in James itself, so if it is not embedded it
> won't matter what serves them as long as we stay inside J2EE,
> we would just provide the WA
>From previous suggestions and discussions the best fit would seem to be
Jetty. But Noel mentioned that we might not want to include the app
server in James itself, so if it is not embedded it won't matter what
serves them as long as we stay inside J2EE, we would just provide the
WAR and let the u
What are you thinking of using to serve the servlets?
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Juan Carlos Murillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 2:18 PM
> To: Anne S
> Cc: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: Proposal for Web Admin Console
You are right, considering that there is an http server in MX4J. But we
would not need to have both running, we could live off the XML-RPC one
without using the other one, which is turned off by default anyway.
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 12:27 -0500, Anne S wrote:
> It's my understanding that if we
It's my understanding that if we go the XML-RPC route, we have to add
a second webserver to the console, dedicated solely to handling the
XML-RPC requests. Do we want to do that?
I definitely agree on the bare-bones JSP/Servlets framework for the
console, though.
On 6/27/05, Juan Carlos Murillo
I managed to make MX4J reply with xml via the HTTP by programmatically
changing the XSLT Processor to a default processor, but to do this we
have to insert a new class in Phoenix to replace the MX4JSystemManager
since all this config is hard coded into that class.
We could do that, or, we can us
On Jun 24, 2005, at 1:20 AM, Nguyen Trong Hung wrote:
Juan Carlos Murillo wrote:
You may think it will be small and simple, but I've always found that
these things grow to be larger than you expect. Anything more than a
one or two page HTML base web stie will benefit from using some kind
of
Juan Carlos Murillo wrote:
You may think it will be small and simple, but I've always found that
these things grow to be larger than you expect. Anything more than a
one or two page HTML base web stie will benefit from using some kind of
web framework - and it is much easier to start using one
> You may think it will be small and simple, but I've always found that
> these things grow to be larger than you expect. Anything more than a
> one or two page HTML base web stie will benefit from using some kind of
> web framework - and it is much easier to start using one from the
> beginning
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 16:37 -0600, Juan Carlos Murillo wrote:
> currently signed up on
> the Web Admin Console are I, Ann and Joe.
Sorry I think i might have gotten the list wrong, i think Nguyen was the
one who expressed interest.
Also a question about the HttpAdaptor for those who might know
> I must say that is one approach I had never heard of, sounds
> very interesting. However we were hoping to keep complexity
> and need to ramp up to a minimum on the web side of things.
> Probably JSP and Servlets only, basic HTML and CSS. I was
> thinking since its an admin console and mos
I must say that is one approach I had never heard of, sounds very
interesting. However we were hoping to keep complexity and need to ramp
up to a minimum on the web side of things. Probably JSP and Servlets
only, basic HTML and CSS. I was thinking since its an admin console and
most forms are ve
On Jun 17, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Juan Carlos Murillo wrote:
Embed Tomcat - portability should not be an issue as any web
application
written under the J2EE specificiation should deploy to any J2EE
compliant container. Tomcat however is by far
Also, I wanted to ask the legal beagles of this mailing list whether
Creative Commons licensed work can be distributed with ASL projects.
Thanks.
On 6/23/05, Juan Carlos Murillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just checked the Nuvola authors page here:
>
> http://www.icon-king.com/portfolio.php?s
I just checked the Nuvola authors page here:
http://www.icon-king.com/portfolio.php?show=os
And boy is that icon library complete, maybe we can adapt it, its both
beautiful and open-source, i guess we can live with a few unaccurate
icons :)
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 08:33 -0600, Juan Carlos Murillo
The Nuvola are indeed quite beautiful, i wish we could use those.
I don't know the ins and outs of licenses, maybe there is someone here
at Apache who we can ask. If a work is LGPL and you the relicense it as
Apache, will that override the first license, will it modify it? Would
that be a proble
The icons on KDE-Look seem to be mostly GPL licensed, and as Stefano
noted, the GPL isn't compatible with the ASL (Apache Software
License).
However, I think a few of the artists would be more than happy to
relicense their work to us. The work is still copyright by the
original author, so the auth
Juan Carlos Murillo wrote:
Sorry, wrong link on last one, here is the right link:
http://www.kde-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=down&page=0
I've been using the Nuvola icons (from that page), for about a year now
for web apps and I really recommend them. Since they're for an OS, they
really c
> I, for one, totally agree with using webwork. I used it before in a
> couple of projects. Their intercepter is really cool.
> Only one thing hindering here is the use of their tag library, it takes
> quite a bit effort to use standard tag library with Webwork
>
Well the idea was to use xwork
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
You mean like xwork / webwork ?
lol
Steve
:) well its not like xwork OWNS the command pattern patent,
they are just the most notorious example in enterprise java.
I am sure nobody will protest about us doing our own. Plus
this thing is like three interfaces
>
> Xwork is really slim: you should consider using if you need the command
> pattern.
> You will get Interceptors (AOP like) and simple Components (IoC) for free.
Sounds good to me, whatever is faster/easier.
--
Juan Carlos Murillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
> > You mean like xwork / webwork ?
> >
> > lol
> >
> > Steve
>
> :) well its not like xwork OWNS the command pattern patent,
> they are just the most notorious example in enterprise java.
> I am sure nobody will protest about us doing our own. Plus
> this thing is like three interfaces bi
> Sorry, wrong link on last one, here is the right link:
>
> http://www.kde-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=down&page=0
They are GPL licensed. You can't distribute them with ASL projects.
Stefano
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 15:53 -0700, Steve Short wrote:
> You mean like xwork / webwork ?
>
> lol
>
> Steve
:) well its not like xwork OWNS the command pattern patent, they are
just the most notorious example in enterprise java. I am sure nobody
will protest about us doing our own. Plus this
You mean like xwork / webwork ?
lol
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Juan Carlos Murillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:15 PM
To: James Developers List
Subject: Re: Proposal for Web Admin Console
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 16:48 -0500, Anne S wrote:
> O
Sorry, wrong link on last one, here is the right link:
http://www.kde-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=down&page=0
--
Juan Carlos Murillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-m
I found some really cool icon sets for this purpose at KDE-Look.org,
check them out:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4914
Have to keep an eye out for the lincense as you suggested.
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 16:48 -0500, Anne S wrote:
> Open source isn't quite known for it's terrif
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 16:48 -0500, Anne S wrote:
> Open source isn't quite known for it's terrific graphics, but we might
> be able to grab some pictures from clip art libraries assuming the
> license is OK.
Totally right on this one, i actually laughed out loud recalling some
stuff i've seen.
> The problem i have with the tree view is that its concept serves the
> purpose of being able to switch between leaves in different branches or
> have a total overall view of the tree, which might not be that important
> here. Each section in the prototype already includes about 15 to 20
> items,
>
> The thing is, if people start adding extra configuration modules
> (Mailets and Matchers, for example, may add config options) then the
> tree view works better, and can speed up navigation than if the nav
> options were just available in a top nav bar.
>
I was thinking about extensibility
Good point Joe. Actually this prototype contains next to no layout in
the html, its all css based, so it should be a matter of adding some CSS
to the style file and viola! lynx-friendly html.
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 13:56 -0400, Joe Cheng wrote:
> As long as we are talking about the web admin UI, c
As long as we are talking about the web admin UI, can I state the
obvious and request that the HTML render properly/sensibly in text-only
browsers like Lynx? Many servers run headless and don't have X
installed, and I bet a lot of users will only want to open the web admin
port to localhost.
Hi Juan,
I looked at the console prototype, and I think it's pretty well
executed (the UI is very crisp and neatly done).
However, I think we need to discuss more on the subject of navigation.
I was envisioning more like a frames page, navigation bar on the left
side, content pane on the right si
Further to the subject of the Web Admin Console, I took the liberty to
build a small prototype web application for which i am enclosing a
download link to get your comments (had included attachments in a
previous message, but the list wouldn't have them). You can navigate it
but it contains no fun
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2005 15:37
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: RE: Proposal for Web Admin Console
>
> Jason Webb wrote:
>
> > I've looked at the JMX support before and there wa
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2005 15:37
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: RE: Proposal for Web Admin Console
>
> Jason Webb wrote:
>
> > I've looked at the JMX support before and there wa
Jason Webb wrote:
> I've looked at the JMX support before and there was one show-stopping
issue:
> no security on the JMX invocations. We need to make sure that at least
only
> "root" can access the JMX services.
AIUI, that is a definciency in Phoenix and need not effect Anne's work. We
should b
Meant to include this link but hit Ctrl+Enter by mistake:
http://wiki.apache.org/james/WebAdminConsole#preview
What is the preference for exposing JMX to management interfaces, RMI or
SOAP?
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:10 -0600, Juan Carlos Murillo wrote:
> How does this sound:
>
> 1- We build the
How does this sound:
1- We build the web management console.
2- We offer it as a war download
3- We offer it as a war/servlet container bundle
4- We offer it as a James/war/servlet container bundle
This targets three different user types:
(2) Would target savvy user with multiple James that have
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> For Anne's purposes, since she has a defined timeframe and task ...
Sheesh, and I know better ... for those who don't and just for correctness
of pronous, Anne is a nickname, and the owner is male.
--- Noel
--
Oy, oy, oy people! Let's not forget that I haven't been accepted yet!
No code has been laid down as of yet, so we can discuss this to our
heart's content. (Although, maybe somebody could slip a kind word to
the Apache people deciding on SOC projects about this project, that
would be much appreciate
Juan Carlos Murillo wrote:
> I understood that Avalon was in the process of being replaced by Spring
> as the Container.
I would sooner use the Geronimo microkernel than Spring.
> > However, I don't believe that we want to embed a web container with
JAMES.
> > Rather, I feel that we want to enha
Juan Carlos Murillo wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I know in past there was an Avalon<->Jetty adapter.
I understood that Avalon was in the process of being replaced by Spring
as the Container. So ideally new developments could start this process
of detachment by not using Avalon
> > Rather, I feel that we want to enhance our primitive JMX support, and have
> > administration tools use that interface.
> >
JMX is, I think, the standard way to expose management functionality
(Java Management Extensions) so you are right, this is clearly the best
way to integrate a web manag
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> > I know in past there was an Avalon<->Jetty adapter.
I understood that Avalon was in the process of being replaced by Spring
as the Container. So ideally new developments could start this process
of detachment by not using Avalon to run.
>
> > Jetty is a slim ser
> > Jetty is a slim servlet container. Probably the licensing doesn't
> > allow to redistribute it with james.
>
> Jetty (http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty/) is under the Apache License.
>
> However, I don't believe that we want to embed a web
> container with JAMES.
> Rather, I feel that we want
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2005 14:58
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: RE: Proposal for Web Admin Console
>
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> > I know in past there was an Avalon<->J
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2005 14:58
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: RE: Proposal for Web Admin Console
>
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> > I know in past there was an Avalon<->J
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I know in past there was an Avalon<->Jetty adapter.
> Jetty is a slim servlet container. Probably the licensing
> doesn't allow to redistribute it with james.
Jetty (http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty/) is under the Apache License.
However, I don't believe that we want to e
> Embed Tomcat - portability should not be an issue as any web
> application written under the J2EE specificiation should
> deploy to any J2EE compliant container. Tomcat however is by
> far the leader in popularity.
> Also a plus is the fact that its also an Apache project. I
> think embeddi
Hi Ann,
Thanks for your reply, here are my thoughts:
Embed Tomcat - portability should not be an issue as any web application
written under the J2EE specificiation should deploy to any J2EE
compliant container. Tomcat however is by far the leader in popularity.
Also a plus is the fact that its a
Hi Juan,
Thanks for the interest, and the outline. Here's some ideas I was
throwing around:
Embed Tomcat - I'm vacillating on the Tomcat issue. I think the
highest goal would just to write the admin interface, but not make it
Tomcat specific. I use Tomcat personally for my web site, but I don't
54 matches
Mail list logo
