geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: Cannot build 1.1 on Windows - long file paths
Date Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:50:36 GMT
Thinking about this some more I believe we need to make a good decision here as having to revisit

this issue in the future will cause users to have to change how the server works.  I've been
to a new user that has a larger server farm and is very interested in the Geronimo server
as their 
new foundation.  However, they run a few thousand servers and are VERY sensitive to changes
in the 
behaviour of the server in terms of how it impacts them.  Changes to the repsoistory will
their operational experience dramatically and they do run Windows (go Bill Gates).  They are

watching this thread with keen interest.  Their biggest concern is changing how their build
distribution system works and changes in this area is highly disruptive for them.

My view of the problem is that there are really three distinct areas of a path.  They are
the user 
area, the server area and the application area.  Let me splain...

| 0000000000000000000000000000 | 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 | 2222222222222222222

The area in the 0's are controlled by the user and we need to leave more headroom than a few

characters so they can manage multiple deployments of Geronimo; this could include multiple
or multiple deployments.  The users probably enjoy flexibility in naming as much as we do.
 We don't 
have control over this but we influence how much headroom is available.

The 1's is really the area we have control over as this is the server proper.  This includes
area from the top of the tree to the end of where the files we create end.  So, for instance,
includes var, repository, etc.  Since were currently experiencing this problem in the respository
think we should focus on this area.

Finally, the 2's are the area that include the application and Maven dependent information.
Maven naming convention is verbose.  The current implementation needs to be changed, the question
how and can the change survive several releases so that our users are not forced to change
deployments on each subsequent release.  *One immediate thought I had was to place applications
into the config-store (or equivalent name).  Rather than simply use a number as we did previously

perhaps the configId of the deployment would be appropriate.  Its human readable and would
shorter than the current maven structure.*  I highlighted the previous as I think this is
the best 
option based on what I know today.

Perhaps there some way to provide a Maven abstraction that would map Maven dir names to an
format for us.  I expect if we are running into this its only a matter of time befoew other
users experience the same issues.  For us its the nesting of Maven articacts / configurations
is causing us the problem.  Jason, thoughts?

Whatever we decide we need to ensure that it is stable enough to work for a period of time.


Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Man I hate Windows....
> Anyway, if you have a real OS and list the files in an assembly, you  
> will see that the problem is caused by the combination of two  changes: 
> we now keep configurations in the repository and we unpack  them. If you 
> look closer you will see that the big offenders are  unpacked ears and 
> wars.
> I believe the following are the longest paths in the server:
> (270)
> geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT/repository/geronimo/daytrader-derby-jetty/1.1- 
> SNAPSHOT.war/META-INF/geronimo-generated/org/apache/geronimo/axis/ 
> client/GenericServiceEndpointWrapper$$EnhancerByCGLIB$$36344d29.class
> (264)
> geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT/repository/geronimo/webconsole-jetty/1.1- 
> standard-1.1-SNAPSHOT.war/WEB-INF/classes/org/apache/geronimo/console/ 
> databasemanager/wizard/DatabasePoolPortlet$ResourceAdapterParams.class
> One thing to note here is that the longest paths are all classes  
> generated by Geronimo, nested classes in wars or compiled JSP pages.   
> Someone should look into makeing maven jar the latter two and  Geronimo 
> should be creating jars when generating classes (actually we  should 
> stop generating classes a head of time but that is another  story).
> Breaking down the longest path, we have:
> GeronimoName (22)
>   geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT
> RepositoryPath (55)
>   repository/geronimo/daytrader-derby-jetty/1.1-SNAPSHOT
> FileName (39)
> NestedPath (154)
>   daytrader-web-1.1-SNAPSHOT.war/META-INF/geronimo-generated/org/ 
> apache/geronimo/axis/client/GenericServiceEndpointWrapper$ 
> $EnhancerByCGLIB$$36344d29.class
> The first thing to note is if we simply replace "SNAPSHOT" with "0",  we 
> drop 28 characters which makes the longest path 242; not enough  head 
> room.  Of course, when we switch our groupId to the maven  standard 
> org.apache.geronimo we eat up 20 more characters.  If we are  going to 
> unpack war files there is very little we can do about the  NestedPath, 
> so we have very few choices left.  If we simply combine  combine 
> ${GeronimoName}/${FileName}/${NestedPath} we are up to 115  characters 
> leaving only 41 characters for anything else, but when you  add back the 
> 28 from "SNAPSHOT", you get to a more comfortable level.
> I think if we combine this problem with Sachin's request for a  separate 
> directory for applications, we could do something like this:
> ${GeronimoName}/apps/${FileName}/${NestedPath}
> There are several problems with this.  I think users will confuse the  
> hot-deploy directory "deploy" with the "apps" directory [1].  Then  
> again, if you look at the problem configurations they are all apps  the 
> users may want to remove (sample apps and the console), so may be  we 
> should just put these in the hot-deploy directory.  Another  problem is 
> that it will be much more difficult to query a repository  without a 
> directory structure.  The server will basically have to  read the 
> configuration from these apps on startup to determine what  they are, so 
> again we may just want to use the hot-deploy directory.   I'm not a fan 
> of the hot-deploy directory, but I'm not sure there is  a better solution.
> Again I renew my hate of Windows...
> /me shakes his fist at Bill Gates
> -dain
> [1] As a side issue, I prefer the name "apps" because it will be most  
> familiar to tomcat users.

View raw message