January 2010 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Remy Maucherat

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522079#522079 Author : Remy Maucherat Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/remy.maucherat@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- I think the point is to be able to add the admin console as default and not look to bad on the "great" benchmarks that are popping up on blogs, where the person simply tests the time it takes to execute "./run.sh" without even looking at what it is doing. So I think this is a useful feature, but we should only use it on a set of known deployments (which is everything except ROOT.war in our current default config, I agree with Brian on that one). -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522079#522079

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Stan Silvert

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522078#522078 Author : Stan Silvert Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/stan.silvert@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > mailto:stansberry@jboss.com wrote: > > Re: the general approach to slimming -- on-demand vs. just keeping stuff out of profiles... > > That's really the core discussion. I like the on-demand approach, and felt like actually coding after 1.5 months of mostly discussing, so I went for it. But if another general solution is better, that's what we should do. > > Stan, the thing I don't like about the multiple config approach is it somewhat mixes apples and oranges -- whether I want something included in the initial boot of the server vs whether I want it at all are two slightly different things. That's true, they are slightly different. But let's don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. I have to agree with Bill on this one. Doing on-demand adds complexity to the system and uses up valuable development time. > For example, > 1) I'm developing with the "cluster" profile. Now I have to wait 18 seconds on every boot for the admin-console. Ugh. (Believe me, I'm very conscious of the added boot time from the current "all profile. ) > > 2) I'm developing with the "development" profile. But now I want to look at the jmx-console or admin-console. I have to switch profiles or create a custom profile to get that. Ugh. To solve #1, we would just need "clustered development" and "clustered produciton" profiles. For #2, I don't think developers typically use the admin console. (Maybe I'm wrong?) JMX console should be enough for development and testing. We'll never please everyone with our pre-defined profiles. But we can make profiles that please most users most of the time. My other point is that we need to do the development and production profiles anyway. Other projects are going to that model and we'll be left behind if we don't address the development vs. production issue head on. So why not kill two birds with one stone and move on to other things? -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522078#522078

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Remy Maucherat

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522077#522077 Author : Remy Maucherat Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/remy.maucherat@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- VDF integration is done for all metadata (tlds, web.xml, web-fragment.xml). Configuration (server.xml and context.xml) reimplementation is waiting on prfile service. Cleanup has been done to remove a hard JMX dependency with the mapper. Integration can then be moved over gradually to the embedded API. The "ugly ass" standalone code will remain as a casual testing capability (Jean-Frédéric loves it). Sorry you dislike it, but as it is mature and it works quite well, so I don't really have plans to delete it for the time being. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522077#522077

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Bill Burke

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522074#522074 Author : Bill Burke Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/bill.burke@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > mailto:bstansberry@jboss.com wrote: > 2) I'm developing with the "development" profile. But now I want to look at the jmx-console or admin-console. I have to switch profiles or create a custom profile to get that. Ugh. > > IMO, this will almost never happen. I think you should focus on other optimizations and come back to this. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522074#522074

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Brian Stansberry

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522073#522073 Author : Brian Stansberry Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- Re: the general approach to slimming -- on-demand vs. just keeping stuff out of profiles... That's really the core discussion. I like the on-demand approach, and felt like actually coding after 1.5 months of mostly discussing, so I went for it. But if another general solution is better, that's what we should do. Stan, the thing I don't like about the multiple config approach is it somewhat mixes apples and oranges -- whether I want something included in the initial boot of the server vs whether I want it at all are two slightly different things. For example, 1) I'm developing with the "cluster" profile. Now I have to wait 18 seconds on every boot for the admin-console. Ugh. (Believe me, I'm very conscious of the added boot time from the current "all profile. ) 2) I'm developing with the "development" profile. But now I want to look at the jmx-console or admin-console. I have to switch profiles or create a custom profile to get that. Ugh. Rémy, I 100% agree that on-demand on a production server is a terrible idea. So if the basic approach to making on-demand work is sound, a next step is to figure out a simple mechanism to allow the on-demand applications to be deployed immediately. The "activator" bean I describe above could easily be enhanced to add some logic to check an overall server state, and actually activate the profile at server start. For example, public enum ServerBootMode { FAST, SOME_MIDDLING_TERM, FULL; } The "activator" bean then has a config property added <property name="onDemandBootMode">FAST</property> In start() it checks the server's boot mode against its "onDemandBootMode" and if the server is greater, it activates the profile immediately, not as on-demand. A startup switch could control the server-wide boot mode. For certain profiles, we could add a bean that sets the boot mode to an appropriate default if the user hadn't done it via a startup switch. Production sets it to FULL, "development" to FAST etc. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522073#522073

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Bill Burke

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522070#522070 Author : Bill Burke Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/bill.burke@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > mailto:bstansberry@jboss.com wrote: > > An ugly solution is to not include these wars in our default profile; users would have to add them if they wanted them. Not very user-friendly. > I think this whole thing is a waste of time and that you should focus on other boot-time performance issues. Why? I think a "development profile" should be created that does not include any of these "management" wars anyways. Embedded unit testing should be the main focus of this profile because if we develop that, this will be a big win for our user base. In development, how often are these .WAR files used anyways? Never, if we do our embedded stuff correctly. I think Remy and company should focus on ripping out all the catalina and tomcat bullshit and focus on optimizing deployment as well as nicer integration with the MC/VDF and JBoss AS as a whole. JBossWeb needs some serious refactoring in this regards, because as I look at it now, it is just a series of hacks and ugly ass code. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522070#522070

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Brian Stansberry

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522060#522060 Author : Brian Stansberry Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > mailto:remy.maucherat@jboss.com wrote: > > Setting the admin webapp (and the invoker and jmx-config) as on demand should be fine, but the other webapps should not be on demand in the defaut config (most importantly including any webapp deployed by the user). And that's it, not need to change much. For sure, end-user apps shouldn't end up deployed as on-demand (unless they go out of their way to trigger that.) And yup, that means including ROOT.war in the on-demand list is a mistake. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522060#522060

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Emanuel Muckenhuber

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522059#522059 Author : Emanuel Muckenhuber Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/emuckenhuber Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- > I did a cut-and-paste job here, but this logic should be factored outinto re-usable code in one of the ProfileService libraries. Is this supposted to be the way the admin-console will be integrated into AS in future then? The plan is to move deployments out of deploy/ - so everything should be described in it's own profile. But ProfileService is not really aware of services activating profiles. There will be something like a on-demand feature, which basically only registers a profile without activating it. However if someone actually decides to include the 'admin-console' profile in his configuraiton, it will get activated. So this on-demand context activator would also have to support that this profile is getting activated when starting AS (the ordering can be controlled if neccessary). I guess that should be no problem? -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522059#522059

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Tomcat Integration Development] New message: "Re: Deployment of on-demand web applications"

by Remy Maucherat

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Deployment of on-demand web applications": http://community.jboss.org/message/522047#522047 Author : Remy Maucherat Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/remy.maucherat@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- I have committed the web code, since it does not do anything if not using on demand. This should allow working on the rest more easily when the next web build is integrated this week. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522047#522047

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Microcontainer Development] New message: "Re: Pluggable dependency resolver"

by Kabir Khan

JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Pluggable dependency resolver": http://community.jboss.org/message/522036#522036 Author : Kabir Khan Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/kabir.khan@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- I've further extracted how the on demand dependencies are handled in the legacy and new model, which brings the total errors in KernelAllTestSuite down to 10. These are in: * ScopingAliasTestCase * ScopingAliasAPITestCase * ScopingOverrideTestCase * ScopingDependencyTestCase By the way, if anybody wants to try this out, you switch the dependency resolvers in https://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/kernel/branches/resolver/dep.... Currently it looks like this: public class DependencyResolverAbstractFactory { private static final DependencyResolverAbstractFactory INSTANCE = new DependencyResolverAbstractFactory(); private static final DependencyResolverFactory factory; static { //TODO configure with system properties // String name = "org.jboss.dependency.plugins.resolver.standard.StandardDependencyResolverFactory"; //1 // String name = "org.jboss.dependency.plugins.resolver.indexing.IndexingDependencyResolverFactory"; //2 String name = "org.jboss.kernel.plugins.resolver.indexing.IndexingKernelDependencyResolverFactory"; //3 * 1 is the legacy resolver and all tests pass with that * 2 is the new resolver used for the dependency project * 3 is the new resolver used for the kernel project -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/522036#522036

16 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums January 2010