Option D -------- System = deploy/system User = deploy/apps + Looks the nicest + Not too hard to find the new location - Users will put things in deploy and it won't work!

Emanuel Muckenhuber wrote: > Jason T. Greene wrote: >> >> Option D >> -------- >> System = deploy/system >> User = deploy/apps >> >> + Looks the nicest >> + Not too hard to find the new location >> - Users will put things in deploy and it won't work! >> > > You could just move deploy/* to a deploy/system/ folder. Good idea (we will call this Option F). Any opinions on this approach?

Hi Everyone, One topic that seems to come up often, but yet we never get around to addressing, is adding a user specific deploy directory that is empty by default [1]. If we go this route, what should we call such directories? I added a few Pros = + Cons = - Option A -------- System = deploy User = apps + Users that expect system configuration files in deploy (like tomcat) won't be caught off-guard - Users might not notice the apps directory and put things in deploy anyway Option B -------- System = system User = apps + Looks nice - New locations may be hard to find Option C -------- System = system User = deploy + Users can still put apps in deploy, as they expect, and they no longer see system deployments - Users will have to find the new config location Option D -------- System = deploy/system User = deploy/apps + Looks the nicest + Not too hard to find the new location - Users will put things in deploy and it won't work! Option E -------- System = deploy-system Apps = deploy-apps + Putting files in the deploy dir is no longer a problem since it doesn't exist + Not too hard to find the new location - Deploy no longer exists - Kind of ugly [1] https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-5954

What is the scope of the user specific deploy directory?

For example the jpa-deployers needs a PersistenceUnitDependencyResolver which can be plugged with two different search strategies: - SpecCompliantSearchStrategy - JBossSearchStrategy The choice of which one is an user configuration item, not a system configuration item. So where does it go?

Expect for breaking the testsuite and tck for a week (ok that's temporary), every script, classpath or document out there will most probably break. I reckon the safest option is a variation of option A: ./deploy ./deploy-apps Leave things in deploy as-is and add a deploy-apps pre-configured to be deployed last. If users want to use this instead of ./deploy, fine, if not, no problem again. A directory listing will also show those together.

Although I would like to see ./deploy reserved for user applications (option C), it will wreak havoc :-). Expect for breaking the testsuite and tck for a week (ok that's temporary), every script, classpath or document out there will most probably break. I reckon the safest option is a variation of option A: ./deploy ./deploy-apps Leave things in deploy as-is and add a deploy-apps pre-configured to be deployed last. If users want to use this instead of ./deploy, fine, if not, no problem again. A directory listing will also show those together. For AS 6 you can try more radical changes, IMHO. Jason T. Greene wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > One topic that seems to come up often, but yet we never get around to > addressing, is adding a user specific deploy directory that is empty > by default [1]. > > If we go this route, what should we call such directories? > > I added a few > > Pros = + Cons = - > > Option A > -------- > System = deploy > User = apps > > + Users that expect system configuration files in deploy (like tomcat) > won't be caught off-guard > - Users might not notice the apps directory and put things in deploy > anyway > > Option B > -------- > System = system > User = apps > > + Looks nice > - New locations may be hard to find > > Option C > -------- > System = system > User = deploy > > + Users can still put apps in deploy, as they expect, and they no > longer see system deployments > - Users will have to find the new config location > > > Option D > -------- > System = deploy/system > User = deploy/apps > > + Looks the nicest > + Not too hard to find the new location > - Users will put things in deploy and it won't work! > > > Option E > -------- > System = deploy-system > Apps = deploy-apps > > + Putting files in the deploy dir is no longer a problem since it > doesn't exist > + Not too hard to find the new location > - Deploy no longer exists > - Kind of ugly > > > [1] https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-5954 > _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

Except that nobody will probably use deploy-apps if deploy is sitting there. Anyway we've already "broken" some compatibility by pulling out deployers/, haven't we? That seemed to go OK. - DML On 03/26/2009 03:31 AM, Dimitris Andreadis wrote: > Although I would like to see ./deploy reserved for user applications > (option C), it will wreak havoc :-). > > Expect for breaking the testsuite and tck for a week (ok that's > temporary), every script, classpath or document out there will most > probably break. > > I reckon the safest option is a variation of option A: > > ./deploy > ./deploy-apps > > Leave things in deploy as-is and add a deploy-apps pre-configured to > be deployed last. If users want to use this instead of ./deploy, > fine, if not, no problem again. A directory listing will also show > those together. > > For AS 6 you can try more radical changes, IMHO. > > Jason T. Greene wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> One topic that seems to come up often, but yet we never get around >> to addressing, is adding a user specific deploy directory that is >> empty by default [1]. >> >> If we go this route, what should we call such directories? >> >> I added a few >> >> Pros = + Cons = - >> >> Option A >> -------- >> System = deploy >> User = apps >> >> + Users that expect system configuration files in deploy (like >> tomcat) won't be caught off-guard >> - Users might not notice the apps directory and put things in deploy >> anyway >> >> Option B >> -------- >> System = system >> User = apps >> >> + Looks nice >> - New locations may be hard to find >> >> Option C >> -------- >> System = system >> User = deploy >> >> + Users can still put apps in deploy, as they expect, and they no >> longer see system deployments >> - Users will have to find the new config location >> >> >> Option D >> -------- >> System = deploy/system >> User = deploy/apps >> >> + Looks the nicest >> + Not too hard to find the new location >> - Users will put things in deploy and it won't work! >> >> >> Option E >> -------- >> System = deploy-system >> Apps = deploy-apps >> >> + Putting files in the deploy dir is no longer a problem since it >> doesn't exist >> + Not too hard to find the new location >> - Deploy no longer exists >> - Kind of ugly >> >> >> [1] https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-5954 >>

AFAIK the plan for AS6 is to ship a (almost) empty deploy/ directory. Where all system deployments are in a common location so that they don't need to be present in each server/${config}/ - which will reduce the distribution size. So if we change something for 5.1 then we should consider that too. Not that we introduce a deploy-app which we are going to drop later on. Dimitris Andreadis wrote: > Although I would like to see ./deploy reserved for user applications > (option C), it will wreak havoc :-). > > Expect for breaking the testsuite and tck for a week (ok that's > temporary), every script, classpath or document out there will most > probably break. > > I reckon the safest option is a variation of option A: > > ./deploy > ./deploy-apps > > Leave things in deploy as-is and add a deploy-apps pre-configured to > be deployed last. If users want to use this instead of ./deploy, fine, > if not, no problem again. A directory listing will also show those > together. > > For AS 6 you can try more radical changes, IMHO. > > Jason T. Greene wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> One topic that seems to come up often, but yet we never get around to >> addressing, is adding a user specific deploy directory that is empty >> by default [1]. >> >> If we go this route, what should we call such directories? >> >> I added a few >> >> Pros = + Cons = - >> >> Option A >> -------- >> System = deploy >> User = apps >> >> + Users that expect system configuration files in deploy (like >> tomcat) won't be caught off-guard >> - Users might not notice the apps directory and put things in deploy >> anyway >> >> Option B >> -------- >> System = system >> User = apps >> >> + Looks nice >> - New locations may be hard to find >> >> Option C >> -------- >> System = system >> User = deploy >> >> + Users can still put apps in deploy, as they expect, and they no >> longer see system deployments >> - Users will have to find the new config location >> >> >> Option D >> -------- >> System = deploy/system >> User = deploy/apps >> >> + Looks the nicest >> + Not too hard to find the new location >> - Users will put things in deploy and it won't work! >> >> >> Option E >> -------- >> System = deploy-system >> Apps = deploy-apps >> >> + Putting files in the deploy dir is no longer a problem since it >> doesn't exist >> + Not too hard to find the new location >> - Deploy no longer exists >> - Kind of ugly >> >> >> [1] https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-5954 >> > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development