«

Yo!

Anyone here using JBoss 7? I've just started getting to grips with it, and
my head is swimming. I'd be interested to hear about anyone's experiences
with it.

So far, the good: it starts up really, really fast. 1.7 seconds for an
empty container. I know the time to start an empty container doesn't mean
much, but that's certainly a lot faster than any previous version could do
it! Also, the way modules are now loaded on demand, so that i don't have
to worry about whether i need the 'default' or 'all' profiles, or about
doing any slimming.

The bad: they appear to have got rid of the idea of servers (as in
$JBOSS_HOME/server), which was something i have always leaned on very
heavily. It's not clear to me how you're supposed to manage a system which
has multiple completely independent applications which you'd like to be
able to run as separate processes (as a typical dev box does). Running a
standalone setup only appears to support one process per machine, and
running a domain setup rather implies that the processes are part of a
cohesive unit - you have to list them all in host.xml.

I really need to be able to take a project, build it into a WAR or EAR,
and deploy it to the app server as its own process, all pretty much
automatically. Needing to grub around in host.xml defeats that.

So far, i've written a shell script which is a replacement for
standalone.sh which should let me do this, but i haven't used it seriously
yet. I feel like i shouldn't be needing to replace out-of-the-box scripts
to do this.

tom

--
You have now found yourself trapped in an incomprehensible maze.

On 08.08.2011 01:14, Tom Anderson wrote:
> Yo!
>
> Anyone here using JBoss 7? I've just started getting to grips with it,
> and my head is swimming. I'd be interested to hear about anyone's
> experiences with it.
>
> So far, the good: it starts up really, really fast. 1.7 seconds for an
> empty container. I know the time to start an empty container doesn't
> mean much, but that's certainly a lot faster than any previous version
> could do it! Also, the way modules are now loaded on demand, so that i
> don't have to worry about whether i need the 'default' or 'all'
> profiles, or about doing any slimming.
>
> The bad: they appear to have got rid of the idea of servers (as in
> $JBOSS_HOME/server), which was something i have always leaned on very
> heavily. It's not clear to me how you're supposed to manage a system
> which has multiple completely independent applications which you'd like
> to be able to run as separate processes (as a typical dev box does).
> Running a standalone setup only appears to support one process per
> machine, and running a domain setup rather implies that the processes
> are part of a cohesive unit - you have to list them all in host.xml.
>
> I really need to be able to take a project, build it into a WAR or EAR,
> and deploy it to the app server as its own process, all pretty much
> automatically. Needing to grub around in host.xml defeats that.
>
> So far, i've written a shell script which is a replacement for
> standalone.sh which should let me do this, but i haven't used it
> seriously yet. I feel like i shouldn't be needing to replace
> out-of-the-box scripts to do this.

<guessing>Maybe they figured it wasn't a too good idea to run multiple
servers from one installation directory because you might run into all
sorts of issues where you need an update of one installation and all
others are affected as well. I guess you now have to do multiple
installations, i.e. in different directories.</guessing>

Kind regards

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Robert Klemme wrote:

> On 08.08.2011 01:14, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> The bad: they appear to have got rid of the idea of servers (as in
>> $JBOSS_HOME/server), which was something i have always leaned on very
>> heavily. It's not clear to me how you're supposed to manage a system
>> which has multiple completely independent applications which you'd like
>> to be able to run as separate processes (as a typical dev box does).
>> Running a standalone setup only appears to support one process per
>> machine, and running a domain setup rather implies that the processes
>> are part of a cohesive unit - you have to list them all in host.xml.
>
> <guessing>Maybe they figured it wasn't a too good idea to run multiple
> servers from one installation directory because you might run into all
> sorts of issues where you need an update of one installation and all
> others are affected as well. I guess you now have to do multiple
> installations, i.e. in different directories.</guessing>

A novel and intriguing idea! An installation is only 82 MB, and can
probably be reduced to almost nothing with the proper use of symlinks.
Worth investigating!

tom

--
Many CS algorithms become less useful when questions start getting
answered with "maybe". -- Eric Sink