ace-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Angelo van der Sijpt <angelo.vandersi...@luminis.nl>
Subject Re: Migration to Pax Runner...
Date Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:13:50 GMT
Hi Tony,

I just checked the patch, and for the most part it looks good: targets  
work, and I like the idea of being to produce a standalone zip without  
the need for managing our own framework.
However, I do have some issues with the proposed solution,
- The runtime properties show up in a number of locations in the  
release versions, both in the .sh and .bat, and in the  
config.properties. I would prefer it if they would only be set in the  
config.properties file.
- We now have fixed references to the targets we want to create in the  
main build.xml. Would it be possible to, for instance, make one target  
that checks for the existence of a platform.setup in any of the conf/ 
<target> directories?
- We are now no longer able to build the existing targets, since the  
'package' target has been reused. I agree that most of these are no  
longer necessary, might it be an idea to just remove them for now?

My two cents,

Angelo


On 6 Oct 2009, at 00:28, Toni Menzel wrote:

> Hey,
> Just attached a new patch on ACE-32 which also includes the new pax  
> runner
> version 1.2.1.
>
> Plus:
> 1. Flexible Development Targets
> with "ant package" you will get pax runner based configuration  
> scripts for
> the afromentioned targets in the usual deploy/target/ folders.
> (runDev.sh, runDev.bat)
>
> 2. Standalone Outputs (just as before, but flexible as paxrunner  
> generates
> many things)
> with "ant zip" a pax runner instance will pre-load all requirements  
> and
> config files and zip them up at the usual release folder.
>
> 3. Single Point of Entry
> All target relevant configuration now sits in
> conf/{target}/platform.properties (just parameters) and  
> platform.setup (all
> bundles required as well as pax runner options).
> Target Framework and Version "can" be set in platform.properties but  
> is
> super-configured by settings made in "packageDevelopment" and
> "packageProduction" targets in build.xml.
> (currently it is Felix 2.0.0)
>
> Though we should really change the artifacts to at least match some  
> the
> snapshot version classifier.
> (0.8.0-SNAPSHOT i would suggest). Cause this shows there is already  
> some
> meat behind (liQ).
>
> This way, we could easily go on with ACE-18 (maven exports)
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Marcel Offermans <
> marcel.offermans@luminis.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hello Toni,
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2009, at 11:18 , Toni Menzel wrote:
>>
>> Glad you asked, Angelo and I had further discussions on gchat and  
>> agreed
>>> on
>>> a way to go.
>>> Here's the current status (lengthy version;)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the warning! ;)
>>
>> PART 1: General things
>>> First of all, what makes ace assemblies so different from other  
>>> Pax Runner
>>> setups:
>>> a. Artifacts are flat file artifacts up until now (See
>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-18 for some thoughts on  
>>> this)
>>> b. Artifacts are highly configured through config files who must  
>>> be at a
>>> certain place on startup
>>>
>>> We can (and should) overcome [a] easily. (see ideas on using Pax  
>>> Runner
>>> Profiles in part 3)
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, see below for comments on ACE-18.
>>
>> [b] means:
>>> we cannot just provide a single Pax Runner config file. We need to  
>>> copy
>>> those configuration files to a certain position.
>>>
>>
>> Like you say, a target consists of code (a set of bundles) and
>> configuration (now done with our configurator which reads  
>> configuration
>> files from a directory, but essentially anything that imports  
>> Configuration
>> Admin configs should do, we also have code to use the XML format  
>> defined in
>> the Auto Config section, which is used together with the resource  
>> processor.
>>
>> In the end we should be able to deploy all these targets using  
>> deployment
>> packages (containing bundles and configuration).
>>
>> Have you thought about adding some kind of support for  
>> configurations to
>> Pax Runner (except the system properties)?
>
>
> Not yet, feel free to suggest. ;)
>
>
>>
>>
>> PART 2: Result of discussion so far
>>> We need a number of pre-defined targets: a default target, a default
>>> server,
>>> a server-obr combo, etc.
>>>
>>> For each of these, we would like a 'release' version containing a
>>> framework
>>> of our choice (latests felix), and does not require anything else at
>>> runtime.
>>>
>>> The 'dev' version is based on pax runner, can be configured to use  
>>> any
>>> framework you like, and contains possibly some additional bundles  
>>> (e.g.
>>> for
>>> logging)
>>> So, that would lead to something like six target xml's, resulting in
>>> twelve
>>> directories in the deploy/target directory.
>>>
>>> Each of those targets will be produced by Pax Runner.
>>> Release targets will have no pax runner reference and will be  
>>> static to
>>> known (recommended?) target configuration set.
>>> Benefit of using Pax Runner even in that scenario instead of the  
>>> current
>>> way
>>> is (amonngst others): simple to switch to a different frameework and
>>> version, same "language" used to define the assembly as in dev-  
>>> versions
>>> (who will be just a pax runner config file).
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> PART 3: Ideas on using profiles
>>> One other thing i see  as well:
>>> Pax Rummer has the notion of profiles / composites.
>>> So, if we decide to publish ace artifacts to a snapshot repository  
>>> (maven)
>>> somewhere, we can add ace profiles for each target here:
>>> https://scm.ops4j.org/repos/ops4j/projects/pax/runner-repository/.
>>>
>>
>> Can we also make this work when deploying to your own local Maven
>> repository (keeping everything you need local)?
>
> yes, we can !
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This would make starting with ace very simple:
>>> ./pax-run.sh --profiles=org.apache.ace.gateway
>>> and in exam:
>>> profile("org.apache.ace.gateway")
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, I would definitely like this if we can find some way to  
>> provide the
>> configuration along with the bundles.
>>
>> I would also like something like:
>>
>> ./pax-run.sh --profiles=org.apache.ace.framework-with-ma
>> -Ddeploymentpackage=file:dp/ace-server.dp
>>
>> For launching with a deployment package.
>
>
> Already thought about it before.
> Actually more in a form of a url handler like so:
>
> pax-run.sh dp:composite:file:local/profile/pr.composite
>
> where: dp:[CompositeURL] turns any composite (which is a list of  
> bundles as
> plain test file, which are the root of pax runner profiles) into a
> deploymentpackage..
>
> This way we can do it easily. Will have a look at it soonish.
>
>
>>
>> anyhow, this depends on how simple we can integrate the bridge to  
>> maven
>>> (ant
>>> will keep being the buildsystem for ace as far as i know).
>>> See http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-18
>>>
>>
>> I think you already mentioned the biggest issue, the different  
>> versioning
>> scheme that Maven uses (having to use "snapshot" names for anything  
>> that's
>> not a release). I think we should be able to come up with some kind  
>> of
>> scheme for that.
>>
>> I will provide a new patch for ACE-32 to meet the criterias in PART  
>> 2.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, thanks!
>>
>> Greetings, Marcel
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Toni Menzel
> Independent Software Developer
> Professional Profile: http://okidokiteam.com
> toni@okidokiteam.com
> http://www.ops4j.org     - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
> Participation Software.


Mime
View raw message