[jboss-dev] Renaming server/web to server/jbossweb-standalone

[Stan Silvert]

Hi Sacha, when did you come back to work?  :-)

I like Sacha's basic idea here.  Having EE6 in the name helps a lot.  
And I also like 'bootstrap' better than 'minimal'.

I think we still need to decide exactly how many configurations we are 
going to ship.  Awhile back, Brian asked me to open a jira to change 
this stuff in M3.  It looks like that would be the time to nail this down.
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-7651

Besides EE6, the other two things that we seem to need in the shipped 
configurations are (clustered or not-clustered) and (development or 
production).

Here's another stab at the naming:
bootstrap - same as minimal
EE6-web - EE6 web profile
EE6-standard - same as today's 'standard'.  I guess we still need this 
for TCK?
EE6-full-dev - super-fast boot time, less logging, delayed startup of 
admin console, unsecured consoles, JSF2 PROJECT_STAGE set to "Development"
EE6-full-prod - immediate startup of admin console, secured consoles, 
JSF2 PROJECT_STAGE set to "Production"
EE6-dev-cluster - same as  full-EE6-dev, but with clustered services 
available
EE6-prod-cluster - same as full-EE6-prod, but with clustered services 
available

Sacha Labourey wrote:
> Hello, since I've been contributing lots of code recently, let me 
> chime in ;)
>
> What about:
>
>     * EE6-full (aka all)
>     * EE6-web (aka default)
>     * bootstrap (aka minimal)
>
>
> Reasoning:
>
>     * reading the thread, even yourself aren't sure if all=default or
>       all=default+more stuff, what is the difference between standard
>       and default, etc. Why not making it explicit IN THE NAME itself?
>     * "minimal" name is not good IMO since people might think it is
>       minimal in terms of middleware development (or related), but
>       this is really just a bootstrap with nothing on it. So call it
>       bootstrap, or WebOS or kernel.
>     * "default" is really just a trick to know which one to load "by
>       default", but it doesn't give any clue on what it actually
>       contains. Why not make JBoss AS start by default the
>       configuration that has a "++" in front of its name - or
>       something similar i.e. "++bootstrap" or "++EE6-web". Or, if you
>       don't want people to rename configuration folders, create a
>       "XXX.is.the.default" empty file in the server folder, where XXX
>       is the default configuration that will be started unless asked
>       otherwise.
>     * I agree that jbossweb might need to be rebranded. I'd relate to
>       the Tomcat brand somehow (such as Tamcot or Tomchat or Tomkatz
>       ;) well, I am sure you'll find smarter ideas :) )
>
>
> BTW, are all "server/XXX/lib" now centralized in a common folder and 
> refered to by name in a configuration file or are they still being 
> replicated all over the place in each and every configuration?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> sacha
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 14:39, Dimitris Andreadis <dandread at redhat.com 
> <mailto:dandread at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     I see it's changed already, but doesn't it look horrible? Maybe
>     just drop '-standalone' or
>     where are our naming gurus? :-)
>
>     ./server/
>       all
>       default
>       jbossweb-standalone
>       minimal
>       standard
>     _______________________________________________
>     jboss-development mailing list
>     jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>     <mailto:jboss-development at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development