Would you be opposed to a nukes-lite?

[ryanackley]

"ryanackley" wrote:
I want to use nukes but unfortunately my web hosting company doesn't allow EJBs. I was thinking about trying to modify Nukes so it can run as a war file (no EJBs). If I was able to do this, is this a direction you would be willing to go? I don't want to maintain a separate version than the official JBoss verison.

I run postnukes right now. One of the great thing about postnukes is that I can host postnukes on any hosting service because they all support PHP. It is expensive and difficult to find a good host for EJBs.

-Ryan

[julien1]

"cooper" wrote:

"cooper" wrote:
We don't plan doing that now because for us EJBs are a key component of the architecture, meaning it allows us to run fast.

We can discuss about supporting a pure web application port, but what would be your plan about JMX ?

On the hosting point of view, you can have private virtual server for cheap that allow you to host anything you want in java (I have one for $40 per month)

julien

"ryanackley" wrote:
I want to use nukes but unfortunately my web hosting company doesn't allow EJBs. I was thinking about trying to modify Nukes so it can run as a war file (no EJBs). If I was able to do this, is this a direction you would be willing to go? I don't want to maintain a separate version than the official JBoss verison.

I run postnukes right now. One of the great thing about postnukes is that I can host postnukes on any hosting service because they all support PHP. It is expensive and difficult to find a good host for EJBs.

-Ryan

[ryanackley]

"ryanackley" wrote:
I've been looking at the code to see how difficult this would be. I have to say the code is well written and I think I have a general understanding of the architecture. MBeans are a new thing to me.

"cooper" wrote:
We can discuss about supporting a pure web application port, but what would be your plan about JMX ?

I was looking at implementing a JMX agent inside of nukes so it isn't dependent on the JBoss stuff. I don't know if thats how it works now? From what I can tell, the nukes MBeans are registered with the JBoss MBeans server on startup? This may not be feasible in the amount of time I want to spend on this so I might just strip out the JMX stuff. I really don't want to do that because MBeans are an elegant way to manage the components. Is the jmx-console the only way to administrate modules right now in nukes?

I'm still learning so the approach may seem very ignorant :-)

[jae77]

"jae77" wrote:

"jae77" wrote:

"jae77" wrote:

"jae77" wrote:

"jae77" wrote:
you can do management of each component from w/in nukes as well.

nukes is built upon jmx, so i don't know how you could rip that out and still have it work. i would think you'd be better off just staying w/ the php implementation instead of finding something to replace jmx.

[ryanackley]

"ryanackley" wrote:
Another way I thought of is to use the JBoss microkernel. I am still researching that. Theoretically, I should be able to only run the services I need, so why not run only the nukes MBeans. I don't know anything about the microkernel architecture, I am just speculating based on things I've read.

The whole point of not using php postnuke is that I want to customize it for a very specific purpose and I would rather do my programming in Java. I want a war I can just plop into a servlet engine. JBoss is a great app server. Its just too much power for what I need. I don't need a content mgmt system that can handle 1,000,000 hits a day. I need one that I can install on my virtual web host and that I can program in Java.

[jae77]

"jae77" wrote:
you can trim jboss down to only include the services that you need, but you still need the jmx component, esp since the microkernel relies upon it.

if you ran tomcat embedded in jboss w/ it cut down to only what you need, you're set - but i don't know if your current situation allows for that.

julien: what hosting company do you use that lets you run whatever you want?