Steven J. Owens wrote:
Peter,
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:42:34AM +1100, Peter Johnson wrote:
We run 5 Tomcat servers (still on 4.1.x so not clustered) and use
CVS with two tags: 'stage' and 'prod'.
I'm a little unclear on what this means - do you mean branches?
Or do you mean that you effectively do some sort of script to
"get the latest stage tag" vs "get the latest prod tag"? That's
something I hadn't considered, but it sounds like it might be easier
than branches (which I haven't really messed with, but seem to be
notoriously tricky).
Nope, no branches just tags
When a push script is executed the server pulls the appropriate
version from cvs and then performs an ant task to deploy the app,
compiling any changed classes. We find that this works just fine and
haven't really had any issues.
Okay, so ant task to build war file and push it to the tomcat
server. Sounds fairly standard (though still unexplored territory for
me).
No WAR just straight file copy for the JSPs, compile and copy for
classes. (This process was developed prior to good admin / deployment
interfaces)
Check that you are using <jsp:include ...> (include on execute) rather
than <@ include ...> (include on compile) as this *may* be causing the
issue.
Yup, we're using <jsp:include>.
Just out of curiousity why are you are deploying individual apps if they
are so similar? Why don't you just implement a "branding" infrastructure
and run a single app with multiple brandings?
Honestly, I've considered it several times. We're really, really
close to that point already. All it would take would be to switch the
various logo.gif and CSS imports to use a property instead of copying
a template file. Then I'd set up the property singleton to use a
different property file & database depending on which URL mapping the
user requested.
The real reason I haven't is that it just doesn't buy me anything
significant to run them all off the same webapp, while it increases
(instead of decreases) the interdependency, and makes testing much
more white-knuckle. I keep thinking, "well, it wouldn't be that
hard...", but there's no real concrete advantage to do this, except to
save a little bit of disk and memory. And if I ever *do* have a
serious need do something custom for one instance or another, I'm
screwed.
Our app http://www.optusnet.com.au currently runs 4 brands with varying
content requirements. The complexity really isn't that great as most of
the work is performed by a custom include tag which searches a
pre-defined path tree for the specified module. The first one found is
the one it uses. Each brand has slightly differing content.
To me it is a no-brainer to go the branding path but YMMV.
PJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
