[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server Runtime and Server Instance
|
Konstantin,
Thx.
Perhaps a good way to clarify the impact
of the proposed change is to describe a concrete example and show the way
we do it now and how that would be improved by the proposal.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx
"Konstantin Komissarchik"
<kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/09/2006 12:13 PM
|
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| "General discussion of project-wide
or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server
Runtime and Server Instance |
|
Arthur,
I understand and what I am
proposing would in no way restrict this use case. What my proposal does
is make all of these configurations into runtimes. By having access to
the full configuration of a runnable server, we get a far more accurate
modeling of the actual capabilities of the server and that translates into
being able to more accurately constrain the facets the user can select
for the project targeting that server/runtime. Better understanding of
the server capabilities translates into fewer surprises when you go to
run your app. Note that this also does not restrict your ability to publish
the same project to multiple servers. Just like right now, projects would
target runtimes and separately projects would be published to servers.
The only difference is that my proposal would make all servers also runtimes.
Hope this clarifies.
- Konstantin
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 8:40 AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server Runtime and Server
Instance
Konstantin,
The server configuration contains things like port numbers, but also the
list of Web apps (the list
of projects deployed to the server).
You might want to have several different configurations for a single server,
or even run the same code in multiple processes using different configurations.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx
"Konstantin Komissarchik"
<kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/08/2006 07:06 PM
|
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| "General discussion of
project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server
Runtime and Server Instance |
|
I am not real sure what you are referring to by “the list of projects
deployed to the server”.
Currently we have a runtime that essentially represents a server install
location. Some servers require additional configuration files before a
server instance can be started. This is being called the server. There
is one to many relationship between the server install location (runtime)
and the runnable server configuration (server).
This proposal seeks to merge the two for the reasons stated. The unified
list of runnable and non-runnable runtimes might look like this:
My Tomcat (points to the tomcat dir) – runnable as tomcat does not require
further configuration
WebLogic 1 (points to the weblogic install dir) – not runnable; requires
an additional pointer to the domain configuration directory
WebLogic 2 (points to the weblogic install dir and domain directory) –
runnable
The UI would mark the runnable ones as “servers”. There would be menu
actions for starting, stopping, associating projects for deployment, etc.
- Konstantin
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:39 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server Runtime and Server
Instance
Kosta,
Is what you are calling a runable server configuration the list of projects
deployed to the server? If so, I think it is confusing to combine them
since there is a one to many relation between installation locations and
project configurations.
However, I agree that we should make life easy for developers who don't
want to know about servers. Perhaps the New Server Runtime wizard should
optionally create a configuration.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx
"Konstantin Komissarchik"
<kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/01/2006 04:02 PM
|
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| "General discussion of
project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| [wtp-dev] Proposal for Merging Server
Runtime and Server Instance |
|
Currently the server tools framework has a separate notion of runtime and
a server. Typically, the runtime is supposed to represent the server install
location, while server instance supposed to represent an actual runnable
server configuration. The runtime then functions almost like a factory
for server instances. You can have any number (including zero) of server
instances associated with a runtime. While that separation can be a good
thing in some situations, it’s has turned out to be in a problem in others.
In particular:
- The runtime is supposed to be a full description
of the server, including its capabilities (which facets are supported).
While that is true in some cases, often the actual server configuration
is necessary in order to get the complete understanding of what’s supported.
See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=111545
for one example of this.
- Having to create and maintain separate lists
of runtimes and servers has shown to be confusing for users. Extra steps
are necessary. The user has to know about the preferences page for managing
runtimes and the servers view for managing servers. Often there is confusion
as to which one you are talking about. People use terms server and runtime
interchangeably, etc.
- Some runtimes (such as Tomcat) do not have
additional server configuration, in which case the extra step of creating
a server from a runtime is very unnecessary.
I’d like to propose that the server runtime and server instance be merged
into one. I believe we can do that without detriment to the use cases that
gave rise to the separation. We can do that by allowing a runtime to also
(optionally) be a server. That is, all servers would be runtimes, but not
all runtimes would be servers. When creating a runtime via the new runtime
wizard, the runtime provider will have full flexibility in determining
whether the runtime that’s created is a server or not. Some runtime providers
(such as Tomcat) may always create servers. Others, such WebLogic, may
do that optionally based on user’s input. For instance, if the user specifies
just the WebLogic install location, then the created runtime would not
be a server, but if the user also provides the domain configuration directory,
then the runtime becomes a startable server. A project can be targeted
to either one for development, but only the latter one can be used to run/debug
the app. This approach places a lot of flexibility in the hands of the
runtime providers. It’s conceivable that some may even allow a runtime
that’s not a server to be “converted” into a server by specifying additional
information.
The users would manage the list of runtimes via a new Runtimes workbench
view. The view would be extensible, allowing the server tools framework
to plug in and mark those runtimes that are servers with decorations and
additional actions, such as start, stop, and status monitoring. This would
replace the dedicated Servers view.
At the api level, IRuntime would be adaptable to IServer (as applicable)
and IServer would be adaptable to IRuntime (always). The server tools would
maintain the markers that indicate which runtimes are servers and surface
this via api for use by the runtime providers. This would not be surfaced
to the end user via UI.
So how would we handle use cases that drove to the separation of the runtime
and the server?
1. I want to
just write code. I haven’t created a server and I don’t want to create
one. I will worry about running/debugging later. The above proposal leaves
this in the hands of runtime providers. If creating a server instance configuration
is not trivial, the new runtime wizard should let the user opt out of that.
The end result would be an un-runnable runtime that the user can still
develop against.
2. I don’t
want to have to specify the location of my server install every time I
create a new server instance. This can easily be handled in the runtime
creation wizards by remembering the prior selections in an editable combo
box.
Thoughts?
- Konstantin
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
