Carlos, --> re FILTERING PROPERTIES FILES FOR ENVIRONMENTS My suggestion is to externalie that configuration options in a way that your artifact is always the same, and only configuration changes. You can do reading your config files from the classpath or better using JNDI.
++++++++++++++++++++ Sorry to harp on this, but I think I am having trouble thinking beyond the way I have used ant the past few years. 100% of the differences between the developer workstation, pre-production and production builds on my various projects are isolated into properties files. These are then pulled into Spring as classpath resources. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the project artifacts, wars and jars alike, should not include these properties files. These files should either: - be accessed as classpath resource. Presumably some other build/release process would deposit them on the classpath, or they would be added to the container's classpath at startup. - accessed via JNDI. The JNDI entries would either be name/value pairs, the properties files themselves or a combo. When the war is deployed, part of the deployment process would be to configure the JNDI tree. Is this correct? --> re INTER-PROJECT DEPENDENCIES --> With maven the best way is not to rebuild all your dependencies every time, but to depend on the binaries generated by the other projects as SNAPSHOTs. If I can get past the environment configuration step - then I suspect that this would no longer be an issue. Each artifact would be generic and just as relevant on a developers workstation as it will be in production. Carlos -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carlos Sanchez Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 2:09 PM To: Maven Users List Subject: Re: [M2] questions about migrating to maven Hi Carlos, re FILTERING PROPERTIES FILES FOR ENVIRONMENTS I usually don't like this approach for the inconvinients you mention, you need to rebuild your artifacts for each environments, which is usually prone to errors, you test x-dev in your machine, and then build x-prod for production, with no guarantees that it's the same stuff you tested. My suggestion is to externalie that configuration options in a way that your artifact is always the same, and only configuration changes. You can do reading your config files from the classpath or better using JNDI. You can also have dev config as default so your developers don't have to setup anything and you do it only in prod or preprod. re INTER-PROJECT DEPENDENCIES With maven the best way is not to rebuild all your dependencies every time, but to depend on the binaries generated by the other projects as SNAPSHOTs. You can ensure the repo has the latest snapshot by setting up continuum to deploy everytime somebody changes the project. That way developers don't have to go through the extra time consuming process of building the dependencies. Regards Carlos On 5/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am pretty sure that I am over thinking this ;) However, I am having > trouble thinking how best to migrate our ant based build process to > maven. Principally: > > - Filtering properties files for environments, and > - Inter-project dependencies > > FILTERING PROPERTIES FILES FOR ENVIRONMENTS > As with most projects, our apps use properties files for configuring a > host of settings. Many of these (e.g. db settings, log4j settings, web > service host:port etc) are environment specific. Our projects have > properties files for various target environments, such as production, > pre-production, cruisecontrol. Each developer also has a local props > file that they can tailor for their particular needs (e.g. for debugging > you may want to log springframework as DEBUG and suppress all others). > Ant uses these files to filter the application properties. The result > is a build tailored for a particular environment. Since all environment > specific properties, beside the local, are source controlled we have a > high degree of confidence in consistent and reproducible builds to our > shared infrastructure. > > In maven I have been able to reproduce this behavior with profiles. > However, I am not sure what to do with the resulting artifacts. Each > artifact is "tainted" with environment specific properties. > > Should artifacts generated with "local" only be installed in each > developers local repository? What about the artifacts for the testing > and production environments? Should the internal repository only be > used to store "production" artifacts? Should there be multiple shared > internal repositories, one for production and one for pre-prod? > > INTER-PROJECT DEPENDENCIES > Currently we have a web based application broken out into four projects: > > 1 - user-presentation-layer > 2 - admin-presentation-layer > 3 - web-service-layer > 4 - common-utils > > Each project generates a primary artifact, and the web-service-layer > also generates a client jar. > > Currently in order to generate a fresh build of say the > user-presentation-layer, you must have the web-service-layer and > common-utils checked out in your workspace. The ant build file for the > user-presentation-layer will end up calling the other two build files. > These builds in turn, get an update from cvs and then generating the > appropriate artifact. Granted it took some time to get this process up > and running, but it currently works and works pretty well. > > From my readings, it seems that this process is frowned upon. With > maven, the appropriate process would be to "mvn scm:update install" on > the web-service-layer and common-utils projects. Then run the build for > the user-presentation-layer. > > Or better yet, have each user pull the dependencies (web-service-layer > and common-utils) from an internal repository that is updated by > developers checking in changes or by some source control repository. > > However, as noted above, because of environmental impacts, I am not sure > a shared repository would work for artifacts used in development. > Currently, our environment profiles only effect configuration settings. > They do not modify or impact the source code directly. While the maven > dependencies are a result of class dependencies, which should not be > impacted by using an artifact configured for "production" versus one > configured for "preproduction". > > What is the best way to handle this problem? > > I am sure people much smarter than myself have already tackled these > problems and come up with very simple solutions. > > Any and all help sorting myself out would be really appreciated! > > Carlos > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- I could give you my word as a Spaniard. No good. I've known too many Spaniards. -- The Princess Bride --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
