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

[Sacha Labourey]

The problem I see with what you are trying to do here is to actually mix
orthogonal issues i.e. on one axis you have a functional set (web-profile,
full-profile, just-tomcat) and on another axis you have things such as
clustering/dev-friendly/secure, etc.

Actually, I am not sure what is on the other axis (clustering, etc.) are so
much a single axis (since you could decide to apply multiple of those at the
same time i.e. secure+clustering.

Anyway, can anybody see a solution where attributes "on the second axis" (we
could call that "modes") could be applied to each and every configuration
profile?

Probably not the best way to do it but:
 - we could have a limited set of true profiles (i.e. full-ee, web-ee, etc.)
 - we could have a "--mode" configuration on the jboss.bat/sh command line
with a syntax such as (not strictly correct, but you get the idea):
        [--mode { clustered | secured | development | whatever-else }[/+]+ ]
 - in configuration files, we would use a "ifdef" kind of syntax to activate
specific features based on those modes

Am I making any sense?

Obviously, as suggested by Brian, that might not be ideal for the QE team
though.

Cheers,


sacha



On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 16:47, Stan Silvert <ssilvert at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-development/attachments/20100211/01f6fb12/attachment.html