Re: hot deployment directory

[Geir Magnusson Jr]

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
As Aaron said we have made significant progress in testing againnst our 
test harnesses but there are lingering issues that need to be 
addressed.  Aaron (aka the JIRA magnet) has identified several usability 
and bug issues.  The first release that we put our is stable (DayTrader 
runs in most modes) but we do need to fix the lingering file lock 
problems, files being left behind on deploy, etc.  If you have some time 
Geir we have lots and lots of JIRAs and could use some warm bodies :)




Heh.  I've ordered more Round Tuits. :)

I was just wondering - I had it in my head that it was inflight for 
release, and was surprised with Aaron's suggestion that more work be 
done in 1.1.


I understand now.  Thanks

geir


Matt

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:



Aaron Mulder wrote:

Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very
uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in
1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.

IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those to
the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an existing
file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in while
the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.


I thought 1.1 was done and in testing in prep for release?

geir

Re: hot deployment directory

[Dain Sundstrom]

Exactly.  I wrote the SFHD to demonstrate how one does hot deployment  
with the new ConfigurationManager apis.  I expect this code to be  
rolled into a new hot deployer implementation in 1.2 (and deleted).


Below you asked "What is the meaning of "It monitors just one  
directory for one deployable element"?".  SFHD does not do directory  
scanning like a real hot deployer does.  It simply inspects one  
application directory on startup and decides if the application needs  
to be redeployed before starting it.  There are many more things a  
real hot deployer needs to do.


-dain

On May 4, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:


For purposes of the hot deployer functionality, forget that the SFHD
even exists.  It is a special case feature, and does not at all
replace what the hot deploy directory does.

However, for purposes of updatng the hot deployer implementation, you
may want to refer to the SFHD implementation.

I'll probably be touching the hot deployer to add a feature so that if
an app is undeployed some other way the hot deployer will delete it
from its directory.  Hopefully we can both work on this without
conflicting, since we'll be looking at different aspects of it.

Thanks,
   Aaron

On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Thanks Joe.

 Still i have some confusions.

 Is SFHD the substitute for the DirectoryHotDeployer ? If it is  
substitute,
then do we need to disable the hotdeployment GBean for the working  
of SFHD?
 What is the meaning of "It monitors just one directory for one  
deployable

element" ?

 Rakesh Ranjan





On 5/4/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> SFHD is similar to hot deployer but has these differences:
>
> - It is not an integrated part of the server itself.   It is a  
gbean

> itself that must be deployed into the server to use it.
> - It only takes action when the SFHD gbean is started (which is
> typically during server startup).   Hot Deploy monitors files for
> changes at any time.
> - It monitors just one directory for one deployable element
> - It controls the life-cycle of the element it deploys.   I'm  
not sure
> if hot deploy does this as well.  For example, a war deployed  
via this

> mechanism is not added to the server config.xml for auto-start.
>
> You might want to consider my patches to SFHD as well included in
> geronmio-1946
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1946 .
> These haven't been blessed by Dain yet so they may change some.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> > Can anybody please tell me the purpose of SingleFileHotDeploy  
service.

> > Is it same as the purpose of hot deployment directory?
> >
> > Rakesh Ranjan
> >
> > On 5/4/06, *Dain Sundstrom* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>

wrote:
> >
> > I suggest you start by reading the SingleFileHotDeploy  
service I

> > wrote last week.  It uses the most recent apis.
> >
> > -dain
> >
> > On May 3, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> >
> >  > I have seen the same problems with Geronimo-1.1- 
SNAPSHOT also. So

i
> >  > will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start  
working.

> >  > Rakesh Ranjan
> >  >
> >  > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >  > Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is  
in a very
> >  > uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be  
different

in
> >  > 1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same  
things there.

> >  >
> >  > IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp  
of the
> >  > deployments in it its directory during startup and  
compare those

to
> >  > the timestamps of the current modules to determine  
whether an

> > existing
> >  > file there is the same as ever or a new version was  
copied in

while
> >  > the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.
> >  >
> >  > Thanks,
> >  > Aaron
> >  >
> >  > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >  > > Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
> >  > >  Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which  
need to

be
> >  > fixed :
> >  > >  1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the  
modules in the

hot
> >  > deployment
> >  > > directory even if that module is already deployed.  
Since the

> >  > application is
> >  > > already deployed, it throws an error : the  
application already

> >  > exists in the
> >  > > server.
> >  > >
> >  > >  2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans  
kept in

the
> >  > hot
> >  > > deployment directory.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Rakesh Ranjan
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >  > > > You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the  
issues

you're
> >  > going
> >  > > > to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of  
variation in

what
> >  > > > people think the pr

Re: hot deployment directory

[Aaron Mulder]

When you're working on that, you should be sure to test with several
types of modules -- one module with a fully-specified configId (group,
artifact, version, and type), one module without a configId, and one
module with a configId but no version in the configId -- it ought to
work all ways (and probably doesn't right now).

Thanks,
   Aaron

On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Aaron, Thanks for clarification.
 We will work without conflicting. I am going to touch the startup problem.
I mean if a module kept in hot deployment directory is already deployed, the
server should not deploy the module again during the startup. Currently the
server try to deploy the module again and throws exception. i already
created a JIRA ID (GERONIMO-1982) for this.

 Rakesh Ranjan


On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For purposes of the hot deployer functionality, forget that the SFHD
> even exists.  It is a special case feature, and does not at all
> replace what the hot deploy directory does.
>
> However, for purposes of updatng the hot deployer implementation, you
> may want to refer to the SFHD implementation.
>
> I'll probably be touching the hot deployer to add a feature so that if
> an app is undeployed some other way the hot deployer will delete it
> from its directory.  Hopefully we can both work on this without
> conflicting, since we'll be looking at different aspects of it.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks Joe.
> >
> >  Still i have some confusions.
> >
> >  Is SFHD the substitute for the DirectoryHotDeployer ? If it is
substitute,
> > then do we need to disable the hotdeployment GBean for the working of
SFHD?
> >  What is the meaning of "It monitors just one directory for one
deployable
> > element" ?
> >
> >  Rakesh Ranjan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/4/06, Joe Bohn < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > SFHD is similar to hot deployer but has these differences:
> > >
> > > - It is not an integrated part of the server itself.   It is a gbean
> > > itself that must be deployed into the server to use it.
> > > - It only takes action when the SFHD gbean is started (which is
> > > typically during server startup).   Hot Deploy monitors files for
> > > changes at any time.
> > > - It monitors just one directory for one deployable element
> > > - It controls the life-cycle of the element it deploys.   I'm not sure
> > > if hot deploy does this as well.  For example, a war deployed via this
> > > mechanism is not added to the server config.xml for auto-start.
> > >
> > > You might want to consider my patches to SFHD as well included in
> > > geronmio-1946
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1946 .
> > > These haven't been blessed by Dain yet so they may change some.
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >
> > > Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> > > > Can anybody please tell me the purpose of SingleFileHotDeploy
service.
> > > > Is it same as the purpose of hot deployment directory?
> > > >
> > > > Rakesh Ranjan
> > > >
> > > > On 5/4/06, *Dain Sundstrom* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you start by reading the SingleFileHotDeploy service I
> > > > wrote last week.  It uses the most recent apis.
> > > >
> > > > -dain
> > > >
> > > > On May 3, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  > I have seen the same problems with Geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT
also. So
> > i
> > > >  > will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start working.
> > > >  > Rakesh Ranjan
> > > >  >
> > > >  > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >  > Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a
very
> > > >  > uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be
different
> > in
> > > >  > 1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things
there.
> > > >  >
> > > >  > IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of
the
> > > >  > deployments in it its directory during startup and compare
those
> > to
> > > >  > the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an
> > > > existing
> > > >  > file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in
> > while
> > > >  > the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.
> > > >  >
> > > >  > Thanks,
> > > >  > Aaron
> > > >  >
> > > >  > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >  > > Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
> > > >  > >  Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need
to
> > be
> > > >  > fixed :
> > > >  > >  1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in
the
> > hot
> > > >  > deployment
> > > >  > > directory even if that module is already deployed. Since
the
> > > >  > application is
> > > >  > > already deployed, it throws an error : the application
already
> > > >  > exists in the
> > > >  > 

Re: hot deployment directory

[Rakesh Ranjan]

Aaron, Thanks for clarification. 
We will work without conflicting. I am going to touch the startup
problem. I mean if a module kept in hot deployment directory is already
deployed, the server should not deploy the module again during the
startup. Currently the server try to deploy the module again and throws
exception. i already created a JIRA ID (GERONIMO-1982) for this.

Rakesh RanjanOn 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For purposes of the hot deployer functionality, forget that the SFHDeven exists.  It is a special case feature, and does not at allreplace what the hot deploy directory does.However, for purposes of updatng the hot deployer implementation, you
may want to refer to the SFHD implementation.I'll probably be touching the hot deployer to add a feature so that ifan app is undeployed some other way the hot deployer will delete itfrom its directory.  Hopefully we can both work on this without
conflicting, since we'll be looking at different aspects of it.Thanks,AaronOn 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Thanks Joe.
>>  Still i have some confusions.>>  Is SFHD the substitute for the DirectoryHotDeployer ? If it is substitute,> then do we need to disable the hotdeployment GBean for the working of SFHD?
>  What is the meaning of "It monitors just one directory for one deployable> element" ?>>  Rakesh Ranjan>> On 5/4/06, Joe Bohn <

[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:> >> > SFHD is similar to hot deployer but has these differences:> >> > - It is not an integrated part of the server itself.   It is a gbean

> > itself that must be deployed into the server to use it.> > - It only takes action when the SFHD gbean is started (which is> > typically during server startup).   Hot Deploy monitors files for
> > changes at any time.> > - It monitors just one directory for one deployable element> > - It controls the life-cycle of the element it deploys.   I'm not sure> > if hot deploy does this as well.  For example, a war deployed via this
> > mechanism is not added to the server config.xml for auto-start.> >> > You might want to consider my patches to SFHD as well included in> > geronmio-1946> 

http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1946 .> > These haven't been blessed by Dain yet so they may change some.> >> > Joe> >> >> > Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> > > Can anybody please tell me the purpose of SingleFileHotDeploy service.> > > Is it same as the purpose of hot deployment directory?> > >> > > Rakesh Ranjan> > >
> > > On 5/4/06, *Dain Sundstrom* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:> > >> > > I suggest you start by reading the SingleFileHotDeploy service I
> > > wrote last week.  It uses the most recent apis.> > >> > > -dain> > >> > > On May 3, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:> > >
> > >  > I have seen the same problems with Geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT also. So> i> > >  > will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start working.> > >  > Rakesh Ranjan
> > >  >> > >  > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>
> >  > Please do any work in
the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very> >
>  > uncertain
state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different> in> > >  > 1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.> > >  >> > >  > IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
> > >  > deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those> to> > >  > the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an> > > existing
> > >  > file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in> while> > >  > the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.> > >  >> > >  > Thanks,
> > >  > Aaron> > >  >> > >  > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:> > >  > > Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
>
> >  > >  Here
are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to> be> > >  > fixed :>
> >  > >  1.
When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the> hot> > >  > deployment> > >  > > directory even if that module is already deployed. Since the> > >  > application is
> > >  > > already deployed, it throws an error : the application already> > >  > exists in the> > >  > > server.> > >  > >>
> >  > >  2.
Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in> the> > >  > hot> > >  > > deployment directory.> > >  > >> > >  > >  Rakesh Ranjan
> > >  > >> > >  > >> > >  > > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder < 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>
> >  > > > You're
welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues> you're> > >  > going>
> >  > > > to attempt
to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in> what> > >  > > > people think the problems actually are.> > >  > > >> > >  > > > Thanks,
> > >  > > > Aaron> > >  > 

Re: hot deployment directory

[Aaron Mulder]

For purposes of the hot deployer functionality, forget that the SFHD
even exists.  It is a special case feature, and does not at all
replace what the hot deploy directory does.

However, for purposes of updatng the hot deployer implementation, you
may want to refer to the SFHD implementation.

I'll probably be touching the hot deployer to add a feature so that if
an app is undeployed some other way the hot deployer will delete it
from its directory.  Hopefully we can both work on this without
conflicting, since we'll be looking at different aspects of it.

Thanks,
   Aaron

On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Thanks Joe.

 Still i have some confusions.

 Is SFHD the substitute for the DirectoryHotDeployer ? If it is substitute,
then do we need to disable the hotdeployment GBean for the working of SFHD?
 What is the meaning of "It monitors just one directory for one deployable
element" ?

 Rakesh Ranjan





On 5/4/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> SFHD is similar to hot deployer but has these differences:
>
> - It is not an integrated part of the server itself.   It is a gbean
> itself that must be deployed into the server to use it.
> - It only takes action when the SFHD gbean is started (which is
> typically during server startup).   Hot Deploy monitors files for
> changes at any time.
> - It monitors just one directory for one deployable element
> - It controls the life-cycle of the element it deploys.   I'm not sure
> if hot deploy does this as well.  For example, a war deployed via this
> mechanism is not added to the server config.xml for auto-start.
>
> You might want to consider my patches to SFHD as well included in
> geronmio-1946
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1946 .
> These haven't been blessed by Dain yet so they may change some.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> > Can anybody please tell me the purpose of SingleFileHotDeploy service.
> > Is it same as the purpose of hot deployment directory?
> >
> > Rakesh Ranjan
> >
> > On 5/4/06, *Dain Sundstrom* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
wrote:
> >
> > I suggest you start by reading the SingleFileHotDeploy service I
> > wrote last week.  It uses the most recent apis.
> >
> > -dain
> >
> > On May 3, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
> >
> >  > I have seen the same problems with Geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT also. So
i
> >  > will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start working.
> >  > Rakesh Ranjan
> >  >
> >  > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >  > Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very
> >  > uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different
in
> >  > 1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.
> >  >
> >  > IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
> >  > deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those
to
> >  > the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an
> > existing
> >  > file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in
while
> >  > the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.
> >  >
> >  > Thanks,
> >  > Aaron
> >  >
> >  > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >  > > Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
> >  > >  Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to
be
> >  > fixed :
> >  > >  1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the
hot
> >  > deployment
> >  > > directory even if that module is already deployed. Since the
> >  > application is
> >  > > already deployed, it throws an error : the application already
> >  > exists in the
> >  > > server.
> >  > >
> >  > >  2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in
the
> >  > hot
> >  > > deployment directory.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Rakesh Ranjan
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >  > > > You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues
you're
> >  > going
> >  > > > to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in
what
> >  > > > people think the problems actually are.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Thanks,
> >  > > > Aaron
> >  > > >
> >  > > > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >  > > > > Hi all,
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > >  I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory
> >  > enhancement.
> >  > > I
> >  > > > > have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation
> >  > of hot
> >  > > > > deployment directory. I am interested to work on this
> >  > enhancement. So i
> >  > > want
> >  > > > > to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some
other
> >  > member
> >  > > working
> >  > > > > on this issue?
> >  > > > >
> >  > > >

Re: hot deployment directory

[Rakesh Ranjan]

Thanks Joe.

Still i have some confusions.

Is SFHD the substitute for the DirectoryHotDeployer ? If it is
substitute, then do we need to disable the hotdeployment GBean for the
working of SFHD?
What is the meaning of "It monitors just one directory for one deployable element" ?

Rakesh Ranjan


On 5/4/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
SFHD is similar to hot deployer but has these differences:- It is not an integrated part of the server itself.   It is a gbeanitself that must be deployed into the server to use it.- It only takes action when the SFHD gbean is started (which is
typically during server startup).   Hot Deploy monitors files forchanges at any time.
- It monitors just one directory for one deployable element- It controls the life-cycle of the element it deploys.   I'm not sure
if hot deploy does this as well.  For example, a war deployed via thismechanism is not added to the server config.xml for auto-start.You might want to consider my patches to SFHD as well included ingeronmio-1946 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1946 .These haven't been blessed by Dain yet so they may change some.
JoeRakesh Ranjan wrote:
> Can anybody please tell me the purpose of SingleFileHotDeploy service.> Is it same as the purpose of hot deployment directory?>> Rakesh Ranjan>> On 5/4/06, *Dain Sundstrom* <
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>> I suggest you start by reading the SingleFileHotDeploy service I> wrote last week.  It uses the most recent apis.
>> -dain>> On May 3, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:>>  > I have seen the same problems with Geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT also. So i>  > will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start working.
>  > Rakesh Ranjan>  >>  > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>  > Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very>  > uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in

>  > 1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.>  >>  > IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the>  > deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those to
>  > the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an> existing>  > file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in while>  > the server was down.  That should be doable in 
1.1.>  >>  > Thanks,>  > Aaron>  >>  > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>  > > Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
>  > >  Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to be
>  > fixed :>  > >  1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the hot>  > deployment>  > > directory even if that module is already deployed. Since the
>  > application is>  > > already deployed, it throws an error : the application already>  > exists in the>  > > server.>  > >>  > >  2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in the
>  > hot>  > > deployment directory.>  > >>  > >  Rakesh Ranjan>  > >>  > >>  > > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder < 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>  > > > You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues you're
>  > going>  >
> > to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of
variation in what>  > > > people think the problems actually are.>  > > >>  > > > Thanks,>  > > > Aaron>  > > >>  > > > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>  > > > > Hi all,
>  > > > >>  > > > >  I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory>  > enhancement.>  > > I>  > > > > have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation
>  > of hot>  > > > > deployment directory. I am interested to work on this>  > enhancement. So i>  > > want>  > > > > to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some other
>  > member>  > > working>  > > > > on this issue?>  > > > >>  > > > >  Rakesh>  > > > >>  > > >
>  > >>  > >>  >>>--Joe Bohnjoe.bohn at 
earthlink.net"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
lose."   -- Jim Elliot

Re: hot deployment directory

[Joe Bohn]

SFHD is similar to hot deployer but has these differences:

- It is not an integrated part of the server itself.   It is a gbean 
itself that must be deployed into the server to use it.
- It only takes action when the SFHD gbean is started (which is 
typically during server startup).   Hot Deploy monitors files for 
changes at any time.

- It monitors just one directory for one deployable element
- It controls the life-cycle of the element it deploys.   I'm not sure 
if hot deploy does this as well.  For example, a war deployed via this 
mechanism is not added to the server config.xml for auto-start.


You might want to consider my patches to SFHD as well included in 
geronmio-1946 http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1946 . 
These haven't been blessed by Dain yet so they may change some.


Joe


Rakesh Ranjan wrote:
Can anybody please tell me the purpose of SingleFileHotDeploy service. 
Is it same as the purpose of hot deployment directory?


Rakesh Ranjan

On 5/4/06, *Dain Sundstrom* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 
wrote:

I suggest you start by reading the SingleFileHotDeploy service I
wrote last week.  It uses the most recent apis.

-dain

On May 3, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:

 > I have seen the same problems with Geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT also. So i
 > will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start working.
 > Rakesh Ranjan
 >
 > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
 > Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very
 > uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in
 > 1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.
 >
 > IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
 > deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those to
 > the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an
existing
 > file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in while
 > the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Aaron
 >
 > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
 > > Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
 > >  Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to be
 > fixed :
 > >  1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the hot
 > deployment
 > > directory even if that module is already deployed. Since the
 > application is
 > > already deployed, it throws an error : the application already
 > exists in the
 > > server.
 > >
 > >  2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in the
 > hot
 > > deployment directory.
 > >
 > >  Rakesh Ranjan
 > >
 > >
 > > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
 > > > You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues you're
 > going
 > > > to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in what
 > > > people think the problems actually are.
 > > >
 > > > Thanks,
 > > > Aaron
 > > >
 > > > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
 > > > > Hi all,
 > > > >
 > > > >  I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory
 > enhancement.
 > > I
 > > > > have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation
 > of hot
 > > > > deployment directory. I am interested to work on this
 > enhancement. So i
 > > want
 > > > > to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some other
 > member
 > > working
 > > > > on this issue?
 > > > >
 > > > >  Rakesh
 > > > >
 > > >
 > >
 > >
 >




--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn at earthlink.net

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot 
lose."   -- Jim Elliot

Re: hot deployment directory

[Matt Hogstrom]

As Aaron said we have made significant progress in testing againnst our test harnesses but there are 
lingering issues that need to be addressed.  Aaron (aka the JIRA magnet) has identified several 
usability and bug issues.  The first release that we put our is stable (DayTrader runs in most 
modes) but we do need to fix the lingering file lock problems, files being left behind on deploy, 
etc.  If you have some time Geir we have lots and lots of JIRAs and could use some warm bodies :)


Matt

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:



Aaron Mulder wrote:

Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very
uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in
1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.

IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those to
the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an existing
file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in while
the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.


I thought 1.1 was done and in testing in prep for release?

geir

Re: hot deployment directory

[Rakesh Ranjan]

Can anybody please tell me the purpose of SingleFileHotDeploy service. Is it same as the purpose of hot deployment directory?

Rakesh RanjanOn 5/4/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suggest you start by reading the SingleFileHotDeploy service Iwrote last week.  It uses the most recent apis.-dainOn May 3, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:> I have seen the same problems with 
Geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT also. So i> will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start working.> Rakesh Ranjan>> On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very> uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in> 1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.
>> IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the> deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those to> the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an existing
> file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in while> the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.>> Thanks,> Aaron>> On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > Thanks Aaron for the quick response.> >  Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to be> fixed :
> >  1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the hot> deployment> > directory even if that module is already deployed. Since the> application is> > already deployed, it throws an error : the application already
> exists in the> > server.> >> >  2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in the> hot> > deployment directory.> >> >  Rakesh Ranjan
> >> >> > On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues you're
> going> > > to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in what> > > people think the problems actually are.> > >> > > Thanks,> > > Aaron
> > >> > > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > Hi all,> > > >> > > >  I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory
> enhancement.> > I> > > > have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation> of hot> > > > deployment directory. I am interested to work on this> enhancement. So i
> > want> > > > to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some other> member> > working> > > > on this issue?> > > >> > > >  Rakesh
> > > >> > >> >> >>

Re: hot deployment directory

[Dain Sundstrom]

I suggest you start by reading the SingleFileHotDeploy service I  
wrote last week.  It uses the most recent apis.


-dain

On May 3, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Rakesh Ranjan wrote:

I have seen the same problems with Geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT also. So i  
will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start working.

Rakesh Ranjan

On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  
Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very

uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in
1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.

IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those to
the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an existing
file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in while
the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.

Thanks,
Aaron

On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
>  Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to be  
fixed :
>  1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the hot  
deployment
> directory even if that module is already deployed. Since the   
application is
> already deployed, it throws an error : the application already  
exists in the

> server.
>
>  2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in the  
hot

> deployment directory.
>
>  Rakesh Ranjan
>
>
> On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues you're  
going

> > to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in what
> > people think the problems actually are.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >  I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory  
enhancement.

> I
> > > have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation  
of hot
> > > deployment directory. I am interested to work on this  
enhancement. So i

> want
> > > to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some other  
member

> working
> > > on this issue?
> > >
> > >  Rakesh
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: hot deployment directory

[Aaron Mulder]

On 5/4/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I thought 1.1 was done and in testing in prep for release?


No, there are still plenty of serious bugs (including, it would seem,
with the hot deployer).  We're close enough that we cut a build so
people don't have to build from SVN, but I don't think a release is
imminent.

And even if it were, a patch against 1.1 that can be applied post-1.1
is going to be a lot more useful than a patch against head when we
haven't yet merged the 1.1 changes in.

Thanks,
   Aaron

Re: hot deployment directory

[Geir Magnusson Jr]

Aaron Mulder wrote:

Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very
uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in
1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.

IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those to
the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an existing
file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in while
the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.


I thought 1.1 was done and in testing in prep for release?

geir

Re: hot deployment directory

[Rakesh Ranjan]

I have seen the same problems with Geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT also. So i will create JIRA ID for these two issues and start working. 
Rakesh RanjanOn 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a veryuncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those tothe timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an existingfile there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in whilethe server was down.  That should be doable in 
1.1.Thanks,AaronOn 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Thanks Aaron for the quick response.>  Here are two issues with 
Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to be fixed :>  1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the hot deployment> directory even if that module is already deployed. Since the  application is> already deployed, it throws an error : the application already exists in the
> server.>>  2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in the hot> deployment directory.>>  Rakesh Ranjan>>> On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues you're going> > to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in what> > people think the problems actually are.
> >> > Thanks,> > Aaron> >> > On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > Hi all,
> > >> > >  I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory enhancement.> I> > > have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation of hot> > > deployment directory. I am interested to work on this enhancement. So i
> want> > > to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some other member> working> > > on this issue?> > >> > >  Rakesh> > >> >
>>

Re: hot deployment directory

[Aaron Mulder]

Please do any work in the 1.1 branch.  Right now 1.2 is in a very
uncertain state.  Though, I suspect the issues will be different in
1.1, so you may want to start by testing the same things there.

IIRC, the hot deployer does not yet check the timestamp of the
deployments in it its directory during startup and compare those to
the timestamps of the current modules to determine whether an existing
file there is the same as ever or a new version was copied in while
the server was down.  That should be doable in 1.1.

Thanks,
   Aaron

On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
 Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to be fixed :
 1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the hot deployment
directory even if that module is already deployed. Since the  application is
already deployed, it throws an error : the application already exists in the
server.

 2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in the hot
deployment directory.

 Rakesh Ranjan


On 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues you're going
> to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in what
> people think the problems actually are.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >  I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory enhancement.
I
> > have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation of hot
> > deployment directory. I am interested to work on this enhancement. So i
want
> > to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some other member
working
> > on this issue?
> >
> >  Rakesh
> >
>

Re: hot deployment directory

[Rakesh Ranjan]

Thanks Aaron for the quick response.
Here are two issues with Geronimo-1.2-SNAPSHOT which need to be fixed : 
1. When Geronimo starts, it try to deploy the modules in the hot
deployment directory even if that module is already deployed. Since
the  application is already deployed, it throws an error : the
application already exists in the server.

2. Geronimo is not able to deploy the database plans kept in the hot deployment directory.

Rakesh RanjanOn 5/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues you're goingto attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in whatpeople think the problems actually are.Thanks,AaronOn 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Hi all,>>  I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory enhancement. I> have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation of hot
> deployment directory. I am interested to work on this enhancement. So i want> to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some other member working> on this issue?>>  Rakesh
>

Re: hot deployment directory

[Aaron Mulder]

You're welcome to look at that.  Can you list the issues you're going
to attempt to fix?  There seems to be a lot of variation in what
people think the problems actually are.

Thanks,
   Aaron

On 5/4/06, Rakesh Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi all,

 I have not seen much activity in hot deployment directory enhancement. I
have seen there are some bugs in the current implementation of hot
deployment directory. I am interested to work on this enhancement. So i want
to know the current status of this enhancement? Is some other member working
on this issue?

 Rakesh