On Mar 16, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Kenney Westerhof wrote:

Hi,


Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
I've never found a good answer to this use case so far so I'm curious about how others have implemented it. Imagine a project that generates a WAR. This WAR contains a config file (say in WEB-INF/classes) that configures connection parameters for the database. Now imagine that your project wants to support several databases and you want the ability to build for a given database.
I see 2 options:
Option 1
-----------
* Use filtering
* Use profiles to set the values for the different databases
Issues:
* In order to differentiate the generate WAR file name you'll need to use <finalName> but the value set there won't be used for install/deploy which means that the WAR files users will see will always be the same.

You could use the buildhelper-maven-plugin or the assembly plugin
to attach the artifact with a classifier.
You can also configure the jar/war plugins with a <classifier> element.

ok will check all these out, thanks.


Idea for future:
* It would be nice if Maven had a <classifier> element under <project> so that it would be possible to generate an artifact with a classifier.

That's not an option. The pom is shared between all artifacts,
both primary and all secondary attachments. The main artifact is always
without a classifier.

Option 2
-----------
* Create one module per database, under a parent module
* Create profiles in the parent module to conditionally include the <module> to be built
Issues:
* Very heavy (one module per database) especially when the only difference between the generated artifacts is only 3 lines in a config file * Need a way to share common configuration between the modules, in order to prevent duplication. For example if the config files only contains 3 lines that are different for each database and there are 100 lines in total, you don't want to duplicate the 97 lines in as many modules as you have databases What do people do? Is there some plan to support this use case in a better fashion in the future?

This is typically solved in several different ways, depending on the role a person has in the team. Standard j2ee practices etc. recommend a 'deployment manager' to either edit WEB-INF/web.xml before deploying, or as an alternative, a 'system manager' will provide you with the name of a JNDI Datasource configured in tomcat's server.xml (or whatever container is used). This latter approach is best since it won't require any modifications to the war.

You're just pushing the pb as Tomcat would need to be configured too, so the WAR would be the same (good) but the module that generates the container zip/install would have the same issue. And if we tell the users that they need to have a correct configuration then it's not good enough. What I'm trying to provide is an out of the box solution so that users download a zip, they expand it and it just works. Of course there are still some dependencies to the environment like the need for an OS installed, a JVM, etc but the idea is to have something as easy as possible to use OOB.

Also we're not using any JNDI server and to be completely generic we would need to a Generic Configuration Server used to serve configuration data to the application. But again this pushes the pb to this Configuration Server app.

In the case of embedded databases or other circumstances, some other solutions could
be:
- split the configuration into 2 files: the common file that's the same for each 'classifier', and a database/environment specific file. The modules would then only contain
 the environment specific file

Right. This requires some heavy lifting for the app I have in mind and is a little bit less nice for end users as right now they only have to know about a single config file and they'd need to know about several.

- create the environment specific file using filtering and maven's profile mechanism

Sure, but that still requires a solution for the common parts. Something like resource injection (I need to check if the remote resources plugin can do something like this)

- package up just 1 war with a property file for all possible environments. Specify a system property or a configuration file or JNDI property that contains the name of the type of environment, and let the webapp load the appropriate property file. Downside is that you cannot use the automatic mechanism of the db provider to load the property
 file, but you have to supply it in code.

Yep this was what Jeff suggested too but again it's less nice for the end user.

I'd go with either profiles for different environments, or just use settings.xml with some properties that need to be configured (so that developers themselves can choose wheter 1 profile is sufficient, or create multiple profiles for different
environments).
If the only data you want to change is database settings, I'd go with a static JNDI name.

Thanks Kenney for these options. I still don't think we've reached the ultimate solution with all these options. For example with a pure Ant solution it's possible to come up with a better build strategy that doesn't impact the end users. I'd love if Maven could provide a way to do that too in an easy manner.

I'll investigate the options you provided under option 1 and revert back here if I find something useful.

Thanks again for your help
-Vincent



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to