Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-click-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 57031 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2010 12:56:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2010 12:56:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 40238 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2010 12:56:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-click-dev-archive@click.apache.org Received: (qmail 40164 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2010 12:55:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@click.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@click.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@click.apache.org Received: (qmail 40156 invoked by uid 99); 27 Sep 2010 12:55:57 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:55:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.22] (HELO thor.apache.org) (140.211.11.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:55:55 +0000 Received: from thor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thor.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8RCtX2u002300 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:55:33 GMT Message-ID: <21683036.420001285592133338.JavaMail.jira@thor> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:55:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andrew Fink (JIRA)" To: dev@click.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (CLK-719) Click Resources Deploying prevents rapid development with container's (tomcat in my case) hot deploy In-Reply-To: <2415581.363251285245213986.JavaMail.jira@thor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLK-719?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12915293#action_12915293 ] Andrew Fink commented on CLK-719: --------------------------------- Hmm. Yes, It is dilemma. Now If your resources in jar files - you have broken hot deploy. After my patch resources in webroot will be under attack. May be use this algorithm: if (!destinationFile.exists()) { // deploy as usual } else if (ConfigService.MODE_TRACE.equals(getConfigService(servletContext).getApplicationMode())) { //trace mode = special case calculate resource length and compare destinationFile length if resource is longer then overwrite destinationFile So usually all woks like now (production mode). Only in trace mode (when you develop or debug special cases) you should care about your overriding versions in webroot: they should be bigger or equal than original jar version > Click Resources Deploying prevents rapid development with container's (tomcat in my case) hot deploy > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CLK-719 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLK-719 > Project: Click > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: core > Affects Versions: 2.2.0, 2.1.0 > Reporter: Andrew Fink > > Example: > I have some template in "META-INF/resources", for ex: META-INF/resources/admin/blabla.ftl > I run tomcat under my IDE: > 1) it deploys webapp - OK > 2) click deploys META-INF/resources/admin/blabla.ftl to webroot/admin/blabla.ftl - OK > Then I see some mistake in blabla.ftl and bug fix it, build and deploy again. > 1. Tomcat re-deploys webapp over existing webapp - OK! > 2. Click doesn't deploy blabla.ftl because It already exists (tomcat/IDE doesn't clean folder). > It is a problem. > __ ClickUtils.deployFile checks only destinationFile.exists() __ > I think in debug|trace mode, Click should: > - always overwrite (redeploy) files, > - or checks resource length (for example: skip all bytes from resource's inputStream to calculate it's length) and if destinationFile.length != resource.length then overwrite (redeploy) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.