Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:24:25AM +0200, Jose Gonzalez Gomez wrote:
[snip]
> If modifications to the host configuration files are needed (which we
> generally discourage), either a gentoo-specific tool should be used, such
> as java-config, or on can modify the config files in a post-installation
> step.
>
> As long as a JSR-mandated installation system can play along those rules,
> I don't see why we couldn't use it.
IIRC it is normally done just by placing the resulting ear into the proper
place. OTOH - especially for enterprise apps - there is often an additional
config file necessary that is provided with the application.
> [snip]
>
>> If we're able to achieve this, users would have the freedom to choose an
>> open source server installed with an ebuild, or a commercial server with
>> its own installer.
>
> This would be a very nice goal, however it's not top priority at the
> moment, we have far too much basic infrastructure work to do ourselves
> before doing field testing with commerical offerings, too.
>
>> Well, I think right now Gentoo is not missing any critical part of
>> the stack. Jboss is available in an ebuild, and I think they include
>> support for the whole J2EE platform. A time ago there were a certain
>> trend where people created servers implementing just part of the stacks
>> (Jboss started as a EJB container, Tomcat is just an JSP/Servlet
>> container,...) but I think now they tend to offer the whole stack (Jboss
>> now includes the whole J2EE stack, from JSP/Servlets, to EJBs, including
>> JMS, JCA, web services,...)
>
> This is where I always get confuzzled. jBoss seems quite complete, but
> there are numerous other implementations of JMS for instance.
>
> Is it possible to freely mix and match any JMS for jBoss, or does it need
> to be their version?
Yes and no <g>. From an application's point of view they are (should be)
interchangeable, but you cannot necessarily expect JBoss' JMX
implementation working in Geronimo, because the implementation uses
internal services, that are not independent.
> How about servlet containers?
You have to separate between an Enterprise App server and a servlet engine.
The EAS normally uses a servlet engine, but it does not have to. Depending
on the EAS you can tie it with an external servlet engine or one is
embedded.
> The way gentoo has resolved this traditionally, where multiple packages
> provide the same functionality, is by virtual packages.
Do virtuals have slots? A servlet engine may comply to API version 2.1, 2.2
or 2.3 or ... same thing for EAS that may be complient to EJB 2.0 or EJB
2.1 or ...
> E.g. we have virtual/jdk that can be satisfied by installing any our JDKs.
Well, even here we may have problems with slots. Some packages will need
1.3.x, others 1.4.x and I expect a bigger discontinuity with 1.5 and its
new syntax.
> Does it make sense to do something similar for tomcat, jetty, jboss,
> whatever, by grouping them behind a virtual/servlet-container ?
>
> If so, which virtual packages should we have?
IMHO yes. You should have a servlet engine for your web apps and an EJB
server for EARs. The Enterprise server may contain also the servlet
engine ... but I've seen such double slots also for X.
>> Sure... it comes to mind Open For Business (http://www.ofbiz.org/),
>> Compiere (http://www.compiere.org/) or OpenCMS
>> (http://www.opencms.org/). I'm sure we may find more.
>
> If we can get any of these running on Gentoo without too much
> configuration work, and make them all compile completely from source-code,
> I'm all for it.
Cocoon is also interesting, especially if we take Lenya on top of it as a
real Cocoon web application.
[snip]
- Jörg
--
gentoo-java-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
|
