Ok, I finally made it work in the domain mode. Here
I am not so happy with domain mode, though. I mean the command itself,
its syntax. So, I'll need to think a bit more about the usability.
In the domain mode it requires --server-group and targets only one
server group at a time. Unless, it is a remove, it can remove from
everywhere in one go.
Standalone mode is straightforward.
I updated the help for the command too. It's long and confusing :) It'll
need some more work.
If somebody wants to try it and give feedback, you are very welcome.
I'll explain everything :)
Thanks,
Alexey
On 08/31/2012 06:28 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
Do you see value in cherry-picking his patch and adjusting the
command
first? The issues you find implementing the command are what led to
these changes, so it'd be nice to know your commands work before merging
his stuff.
On 8/31/12 5:03 AM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
> Great. Once it's merged I'll adjust the deployment-overlay command and
> submit a pull request.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexey
>
> On 08/31/2012 05:29 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>
>> I have done up an initial implementation of this here
>>
https://github.com/jbossas/jboss-as/pull/2989 .
>>
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On 24/08/2012, at 2:08 AM, Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:brian.stansberry@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/23/12 3:39 AM, Emanuel Muckenhuber wrote:
>>>> On 08/23/2012 01:11 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>>>> Sorry for the slow responses on this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should go with Stuart's approach, particularly if
>>>>> Alexey is
>>>>> comfortable that the CLI can support high level commands associated
>>>>> with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, i am fine then as well - nevertheless some comments inline :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Me too. ;)
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/22/12 8:22 AM, Emanuel Muckenhuber wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My main concern is regarding the domain mode, since the
additional
>>>>>> linking does not seem to be necessary to me and just additional
>>>>>> steps
>>>>>> mgmt clients have to take care of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whereas the deployment-scanner is a single client for
standalone,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is under our control. So i wanted to see if we there is a way we
can
>>>>>> make this work which also satisfies your use cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have two things in mind which i'll try to explain quickly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) you still link the overlays as part of the <deployment
/>,
>>>>>> however
>>>>>> the deploment-scanner is aware of that and won't remove
deployments
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> overlays until you use a specific invalidation marker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This requires that the overlays be controlled by the scanner as
well.
>>>>> Why? Because we don't persist the model resource for
>>>>> scanner-controlled
>>>>> deployments. So if a user linked a non-scanner-controlled overlay
>>>>> to a
>>>>> scanner controlled deployment (which seems quite rational if the
>>>>> overlay
>>>>> involves some environmental settings that never change), the link
>>>>> information will be lost on server reboot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know, but that's an ancient limitation. I guess we could just
>>>> start to
>>>> persist stuff.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We'd have to persist some association between a deployment and a
>>> scanner
>>> (e.g. scanner="default" on the deployment element) and then use
that to
>>> indicate that the server should not auto-deploy on boot but should
>>> defer
>>> to the scanner to tell it what to do. And then alter the scanner to add
>>> logic for it to reconcile the state it sees in the scan directory vs
>>> what the model shows.
>>>
>>> Doable, but a fair bit of work.
>>>
>>> I considered this before going with the "don't persist"
approach. I
>>> don't recall though if there was some fundamental problem with it that
>>> I'm not remembering, or if it was solely that "don't
persist" was
>>> doable
>>> within the time constraints.
>>>
>>>>>> 2) use overlay directories - this is more the file based
approach,
>>>>>> Where
>>>>>> we just pick the "deployment.name + suffix" for the
overlay. So
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> would be an automatic overlay/linking done by the
>>>>>> deployment-scanner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Same issue as 1).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not really. It can automatically recreate the overlays therefore it
>>>> does
>>>> not require persistent information.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It can only recreate the association for overlays that it scans, not
>>> ones that were added via CLI/console.
>>>
>>>>>> 2.1) the overlay directory could be just a link to a virtual file
(a
>>>>>> shared <deployment-overlay />) [1] - so in this case the
overlays
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> managed by the model and are not linked to the deployment
lifecycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I confess I don't understand this. In particular, how does it
>>>>> fundamentally differ from what Stuart proposes in terms of how to
>>>>> organize the data?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well that is the point. It's basically the same, just that it
removes
>>>> the requirement for the additional linking in the domain.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, then I still don't understand it. If it solves a problem I'd
>>> like to
>>> understand. Can you explain further?
>>>
>>>>>> On 08/22/2012 01:03 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what are we going to do here? Personally I much prefer the
idea
>>>>>>> of having this stored in the model and linking it to a
deployment,
>>>>>>> so the overlay lifecycle is not tied to that of the
deployment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another idea I had is that we could do something like define
the
>>>>>>> overlays at domain level, but then define the links at
server
>>>>>>> group or server level using the same name. basically
something
>>>>>>> like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /deployment-overlay=myOverlay/content=WEB-INF/web.xml
>>>>>>> /deployment-overlay=myOverlay/content=WEB-INF/ejb-jar.xml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
/server-group=server-group1/deployment-overlay=myOverlay/deployment=test.war
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
/server-group=server-group1/deployment-overlay=myOverlay/deployment=*.war
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For standalone they would just be combined, similar to what I
had
>>>>>>> below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /deployment-overlay=myOverlay/content=WEB-INF/web.xml
>>>>>>> /deployment-overlay=myOverlay/content=WEB-INF/ejb-jar.xml
>>>>>>> /deployment-overlay=myOverlay/deployment=test.war
>>>>>>> /deployment-overlay=myOverlay/deployment=*.war
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/08/2012, at 11:03 PM, Emanuel Muckenhuber
>>>>>>> <emuckenh(a)redhat.com
<mailto:emuckenh@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 08/17/2012 02:52 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The big problem with this is that it does not work
with the
>>>>>>>>> deployment scanner.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, the deployment-scanner is always a story for
itself.
>>>>>>>> However i think we could actually make it persist
information and
>>>>>>>> be aware of overlays.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having overlays as part of the deployment means the
lifecycle is
>>>>>>>> managed together, so the deployment-scanner could define
it's own
>>>>>>>> invalidation policy. May it be based on whether the
content got
>>>>>>>> removed or we have a specific marker for that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could also think of providing a file-based overlay
solution,
>>>>>>>> managed by the deployment scanner only. In the end people
use the
>>>>>>>> deployment-scanner for a reason, so perhaps not having to
worry
>>>>>>>> about the model or "content" folder could be
interesting. This
>>>>>>>> would not even need to access persistent information
though.
>>>>>>>> Anyway just some ideas on the side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also has to be specified on every re-deploy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you do a "remove" and "add" then
yes. We do have specific
>>>>>>>> operations to replace the content and redeploy the
deployment
>>>>>>>> without removing the information from the model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the simplest solution here
>>>>>>>>> is to just move the links under the
deployment-overlays element
>>>>>>>>> and loose the
>>>>>>>>> flexibility to link at different levels. e.g:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /deployment-overlay=myOverlay/deployment=test.war
>>>>>>>>> /deployment-overlay=myOverlay/deployment=*.jar
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, i was not really going for the simplest solution for
now -
>>>>>>>> this would most likely would be it :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brian Stansberry
>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>> JBoss by Red Hat
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>