geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Geronimo and Grails
Date Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:31:02 GMT

On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:

> David Jencks wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> I've been playing around with grails and I encountered this exact  
>>> same behavior Michael mentioned.  Even with Gianny's recommended  
>>> hidden classes I received the dom4j InvalidXPathException on the  
>>> Tomcat Javaee5 assembly.
>>> I was able to get a grails app working on a tomcat javaee5  
>>> assembly by adding just one more filter for the jaxen classes.   
>>> So, my geroniom-web.xml looks like this:
>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>> <web-app xmlns="">
>>>   <environment xmlns=" 
>>> ">
>>>       <moduleId>
>>>           <groupId>yourGroupId</groupId>
>>>           <artifactId>yourArtifactId</artifactId>
>>>           <version>yourVersion</version>
>>>           <type>war</type>
>>>       </moduleId>
>>>       <hidden-classes>
>>>           <filter>org.jaxen</filter>
>>>           <filter>org.springframework</filter>
>>>           <filter>org.apache.cxf</filter>
>>>           <filter>org.apache.commons</filter>
>>>       </hidden-classes>
>>>   </environment>
>>>   <context-root>/yourContextPath/</context-root>
>>> </web-app>
>>> BTW, it is true that you can deploy a grails app into either  
>>> minimal assembly without any hidden-class filters in the  
>>> deployment plan.  The additional libraries in the javaee5  
>>> assemblies make the filters necessary.  Apparently there are some  
>>> classloader differences between the Jetty and Tomcat assemblies  
>>> that make the jaxen addition necessary when deploying to a Tomcat  
>>> Javaee5 server.
>> It would be nice to figure out what the differences are.  My first  
>> guess would be myfaces, my second some web services bit.  I think  
>> that a ModuleBuilderExtension must be adding more dependencies for  
>> no good reason.  It would be even better to fix this.
> I think your second guess is the right one.  A little more  
> investigation revealed that the only real hidden-classes entries  
> needed are as follows:
> - springframework  - when installing in a javaee5 jetty assembly
> - jaxen - when installing in a javaee5 tomcat assembly
> That's because our axis2 module includes a dependency on jaxen and  
> our cxf module includes a dependency on spring.
> I'm now experimenting to see if these dependencies are really  
> necessary.  If they are, then the next step is to recall how to  
> exclude these dependencies from the default-environment when being  
> processed by the axis2 and cxf builders.

Actually the fix I was hoping for was for the MBEs to only add to the  
default environment if they were actually going to install some gbeans  
that needed the additions.

IIRC the last time I looked into this I got stuck....
we add in the MBE default env on the first call into the MBE before we  
have enough info to look around and see if the MBE is applicable
By the time we do have enough info, the classloader is already set up  
and doesn't seem to be modifiable.

Solution strategies:
1. Construct enough temporary context so we can actually figure out if  
the MBE is applicable on the first call
2. Figure out how to reset the classloader in the middle of deployment  
to a new one with the MBE dependencies in it, if needed
3. separate the deploy time classloader from the classloader structure  
we record in the deployed car file.  In other words, the MBE can add  
the default env in to the classloader used for deployment, but  
postpone the decision whether the default env should be added to the  
classloader description in the car file.
3.a. Construct a MBE specific classloader with the default env and  
including the regular deployment classloader as a parent.  This can be  
used for the "addGBeans" step.  If we determine that the MBE is  
applicable then we can add in the default env to the classloader  
description in the car without trying to change the deployment  

I don't think (1) is practical, if anyone sees how to do it that would  
be great. (2) seems conceptually cleanest but I couldn't get it to  
work when I tried.  I just thought of (3): I think 3.a would cause  
less framework disruption and it seems a little cleaner to me.

david jencks

> Joe
>>> michaelg wrote:
>>>> I am writing an article for IBM developerWorks on using Grails  
>>>> and Geronimo
>>>> together. However, I am unable to deploy a Grails WAR to  
>>>> Geronimo. I first tried it with Geronimo 2.1.1 with Jetty. The  
>>>> error I got was a
>>>> NoClassDefFound for  
>>>> org.apache.commons.fileupload.FileItemFactory. This
>>>> class is the Geronimo repository, and is also included with the  
>>>> Grails war.
>>>> It's the same version for both. Next I tried it with Geronimo  
>>>> 2.1.1 with Tomcat. This time I got a dom4j
>>>> InvalidXPathException. Next I tried the Little G distribution. It  
>>>> worked perfectly. I had also
>>>> tried standalone Tomcat with success as well, so I guess this  
>>>> should not
>>>> have been too surprising.
>>>> Obviously I have to point a finger at Grails or Geronimo, and  
>>>> since it works
>>>> fine on Tomcat or Little G, I am pointing the finger at Geronimo.  
>>>> The
>>>> Geronimo/Jetty error sure smelled like a class loader problem,  
>>>> but I have no
>>>> clue on the Geronimo/Tomcat. Note, in all cases I included a  
>>>> Geronimo
>>>> deployment plan inside the WAR (/WEB-INF/geronimo-web.xml) Any  
>>>> ideas/advice is greatly appreciated.

View raw message