[jboss-dev] Renaming server/web to server/jbossweb-standalone
Stan Silvert
ssilvert at redhat.com
Thu Feb 11 14:34:43 EST 2010
Agreed. So how many profiles is the right amount? I think it's more
than 1 but less than 10. I wish it was 42. :-)
I think we can come up with a profile set that satisfies 95% of users
out of the box. For that, Set.size() == 7.
Jason T. Greene wrote:
> Exactly. We can only provide so many profiles out of the box without it
> becoming overwhelming. The ideal goal is to simplify configuration
> enough such that profiles become unnecessary. The modularization aspect
> of the profile service is going to help initially, since we can compose
> combinations of services (ejb + web + blah). For anything involving QOS
> that should become a simple setting in the future domain config (e.g.
> clustered_services = blah)
>
> Sacha Labourey wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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>
>> > <mailto: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>
>> > <mailto: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
>> <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
>> <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
>>
>
>
>
More information about the jboss-development
mailing list