Skip to main content

[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

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.

Back to the top