More of a standard practice questions:
Is there any difference in deploying an app as EAR vs WAR? How do you decide? (I know WAR is just a web application may or may not have Java EE features like messaging)
Lets say I have a Spring MVC application stack with Hibernate (MySQL DB), should this be deployed as a War or EAR?
When do we need to worry about JBoss deployment descriptors, if I am not using EJBs. (Just Spring MVC). Lets assume I have JMS as well. Do we need to configure/update/create any other JBoss related config files?
When we package our application EAR/WAR, it include EVERYTHING that we need for our app. Is there a scenario where we need to keep some config / xml files outside of this archive in a specified JBoss folder?
Is it common practice to deploy directly from Eclipse or better to use Ant, etc? Advantage / Disadvantage?
Obviously, I am a newbie :-). Trying to understand this.
1.
This is not always an easy decision, but for beginners and for small projects I would say it's nearly always a WAR. The reason for using an EAR is mainly to isolate a business layer from a UI/Web layer. See this question for more details: How can one isolate logical layers of an Java EE application
2.
I might be mistaken but I think that Spring people typically prefer WARs.
3.
JBoss (vendor) specific deployment descriptors are mostly needed to configure so-called "administered objects" and security. Sometimes they can be used for extra features that are not covered by the Java EE specification (e.g. setting the web root for a WAR). Administered objects are typically data sources (connection to a database) and JMS destinations (queues and topics).
In the traditional Java EE approach these have to be created as far away from the code as possible, which typically means a system admin would create them inside the target AS using some kind of GUI or admin console. In this setup, you as developer would throw a WAR with "unresolved dependencies" over the wall, and a system admin (or "deployer") would then spend days figuring out what those unresolved dependencies should be.
If the communication is relatively good between developers and deployers, the WAR or EAR might be thrown over the wall together with a readme-file, that at least gives some insight into which resources are needed. Depending on the organization the development team might not get any access or feedback about how those "unresolved dependencies" have been resolved. E.g. a data source with a max of 5 connections may have been created, but this may be insufficient if some code does say 10 parallel queries. Without the development team knowing the exact data source configuration, some classes of runtime problems and performance issues may be relatively hard to solve.
To mitigate these problems, some vendors, for some artifacts, offer the developer to create those "unresolved dependencies" instead using proprietary deployment descriptors which are then embedded in the WAR or EAR. For simple local JMS destinations this is then in most cases the end of it, but for data sources there is a little bit more to it. Namely, there has to be a mechanism to switch between data sources for different stages such as Dev, Beta, QA, Production etc. Additionally, it's rarely a good idea to have production passwords in the source code.
If you have a simple app that you want to try out locally, stages and production passwords are not a concern. If you deploy for a (large) company it is.
In Java EE 6 you can define a data source using a standard descriptor (web.xml, ejb-jar.xml or application.xml), and in Java EE 7 you can do the same for JMS destinations. There is no standard way to configure those based on stage, but there is a glimmer of hope that Java EE 8 will address this (see e.g. JAVAEE_SPEC-19). Vendors are not universally happy with those standardized methods, and their main documentation will almost always extensibly tell you how to do those things using their proprietary tools and descriptors, and if you're lucky as a small note tell you there's a standardized way (and then sometimes downplay that or scare you by saying it's not recommended to be used in production).
4.
See answer to 3 mostly. One option to solve the problem of how to switch between stages and keep production passwords out of the WAR/EAR, is to have the full definition of said data source inside the AS (inside JBoss in your case). Every AS installation is tied to a specific server in this setup. If data sources need to be updated, removed or new ones added, you have to communicate with your operations team (if any). As said, depending on your organization this can be anything between trivial and practically impossible.
5.
When developing you most often use your IDE to do a deployment. For production you would never do that. For production you may build with Ant (or Maven) and deploy via something like Jenkins, or e.g Chef.
Check here : .war vs .ear file
If you read the preceeding response, you'd guess that "WAR" it is.
Deployment descriptor are needed to manage the modules of JBoss, if you don't have any conflict or don't need any tweaking, you won't need any deployment descriptor.
You may need to play with some JBoss file if you want to add modules to JBoss, or configure datasources, etc. Read the JBoss documentation for more info.
You can deploy from eclipse during your development phase, but as your other environments (qualification, production, test, etc) should be separeted from your developing one and that they won't have any eclipse installed on them, you should get used to manage your server from the command line and drop your war's in the right directories.
It's a short answer, but I hope it will help.
Read JBoss documentation for more info.
Related
My project has requirement to deploy a Java Based application as an operating system Job (and not use any container). The application need to have following capabilities:-
Scheduling
Few HTTPS based services
Ability to make JMX calls
Storage: Data for last 5 to 10 minutes of transactions (not more than 600 rows X 20 columns). Something like embedded H2 or in-memory options
Decision Tree: Something like Drools..
My manager wants to write this application as a core Java with OSGized Jetty version. I am suggesting to use Spring Boot with embedded Jetty(which will give me ready to use capabilities for Scheduling, JMX Integration and REST Services).
His bend towards core Java is emerging from the requirement that this application needs to be extremely efficient, fast and self-contained. He wants to reduce dependency on any open source. I have never worked directly on OSGI but have used products coming out of it - like eclipse.
Can somebody guide how OSGI based development might benefit over SpringBoot?
For many people, OSGi is superfluous, because they don't see the value in being modular. Not being worth the trouble.
Think about the application lifecycle, more or less being plan-develop-test-deploy.
How many developers you have? If many, OSGi helps a lot, because being modular make the boundaries very clear. You can delegate things very easily.
If outsourcing is your thing, you can just handle the module APIs and tell them to develop against it. They will never know how the rest was implemented, no fear of secrets being leaked.
Unit tests are so easy. You obviously see what you can test, every else you mock/stub/spy/fake. Unit tests can be can be reused in Integration tests, of course that isn't news, but the trick is running Unit tests outside the OSGi container, and Integration tests inside. So if you decide OSGi was not worth it, your code stills works fine (unit tests being the proof).
You can make your app a collection of modules, and every module having independent versioning and source repositories. Makes easier to handle and find bugs. For example, the current app crashed, you find out that sub-module-1.2 is throwing errors, try with version sub-module-1.1(still bad), then version 1.0(good), bug was introduced in 1.1 (avoids bisecting the source code). Programmers don't need to be perfectly synchronized with each other if they are working in different modules.
How do you plan to update the app? Most frameworks are of the all-or-nothing approach, where you have to stop the world, update, then restart the app. If you make things modular, you just need to update that thing. Making the downtime very small, and sometimes even zero.
If you need to make a big change in your app, but can't afford to refactor everything right now. With OSGi you can run the system with both my-module-1.0 and my-module-2.0. You can even adapt my-module-1.0 to redirect calls to my-module-2.0, but that is a kind of last resort hack (just saying that you can, if you want to).
I can do everything you say without OSGi, right? Well, probably you can, but in the end, would be something like OSGi.
I love the Dependency Injection of my framework. No problem, OSGi have something like that.
I hate Dependency Injection, it kills my app perfomance. No problem, you can use something like osgi.getService(MyService.class);. The OSGi container isn't concerned about intercepting every call of your app.
OSGi is like Java++, Java plus modules.
You can mix Spring Boot with OSGi, can't say if this is good or bad. There are many libraries and frameworks that fit your list, many will work out-of-the-box with OSGi.
I Wanted to create Java EE application in JSF+Spring Framework with WildFly AS. One of the hot requirements is:
Plug and Play Modules This means if I update my application Or Add new module into my Application.
(Obviously Update bean.xml, web.xml, pojo classes , jars etc)
Then without redeployment of my *.war file and with out restarting my Wildfly AS changes occurs.
This is a complicated requirement for a few reasons. How will you handle changes to your DB schema/entity model? How will you handle sessions which are in progress at the time of the upgrade and are actively using the 'old' code? How do you handle changes to container managed code, code that is managed by the container only at deployment time, for example new EJBs etc?
One approach I have seen used in production to achieve some of these requirements is to do rolling updates with application versioning and full schema backwards compatibility. This is done in a clustered environment which is fronted by proxy servers that can allow active sessions using the old version of the application to continue until finished and ensure that new sessions go to servers/contexts containing the new version of the code. So you end up still deploying WARs which contain the new version of your code, and eventually undeploy the old versions when all old sessions have ended/expired. To do this you have to assume the burden in your code to fully support working against two simultaneous versions of your model when new versions introduce changes to it. This is not a trivial burden. You also have to assume the burden of the extra infrastructure to route sessions appropriately.
I know a product like JRebel will let you do hot deploys of code (even things like EJBs) with the idea being that it shortens the develop/test cycle but I haven't seen it used outside of a development environment. Also you would still have to deal with active sessions that were started on the old version /model.
I have some years of experience with maven projects, even with multi modules ones (which has made me hate the multi modules feature of maven (so the disclaimer is now done)) and even if I really like maven there is something I cannot get a clear answer about :
What is a typical usecase of a multi module maven project ? What is the added value of such a structure compared to simple dependencies and parent pom ?
I have seen a lot of configuration of multi module projects but all of them could have clearly been addressed by creating a simple structure of dependency library living their own life as deliverables (even with a parent pom, as a separate deliverable : factorising depedencies and configuration) and I haven't found any usecase where I can clearly see an added value of the multi module structure.
I have always found that this kind of structure brings an overkilling complexity with no real benefit : where am I missing something ? (to be truly honest, I can get that some ear can benefit from this kind of structure but except from that particular usecase, any other real use and benefit ?)
Here's a real life case.
I have a multi-module project (and to your rant... I haven't seen any complications with it.) The end result is a webapp but I have different modules for api, impl, and webapp.
12 months after creating the project I find that I have to integrate with Amazon S3 using a stand-alone process run from a jar. I add a new module which depends on api/impl and write my code for the integration in the new module. I use the assembly plugin (or something like it) to create a runnable jar and now I have a war I can deploy in tomcat and a process I can deploy on another server. I have no web classes in my S3 integration process and I have no Amazon dependencies in my webapp but I can share all the stuff in api and impl.
3 months after that we decide to create a REST webapp. We want to do it as a separate app instead of just new URL mappings in the existing webapp. Simple. One more module, another webapp created as the result of the maven build with no special tinkering. Business logic is shared easily between webapp and rest-webapp and I can deploy them as needed.
The major benefit of multi modules are
one single maven command to build all your modules at once.
and the most important : maven take care of the build order for you.
configuring your CI-server is also very easy: one single jenkins job to build everything.
I already worked in a project with about 30 submodules. Sometimes, you need to change something in more than module, and running one single command and being sure that everything that need to be compiled is compiled in the correct order is a must.
EDIT
Why 30 submodules ?
Huge framework with lot's a features, lot's of developers, separation of features on a module base. It's a real life use case and the separation of the code into module was really meaningful.
I think you are correct in that most project that use multi modules, actually don't need them.
At where I work we use multimodule projects (and I think that for a good reason). We have something similar to a service oriented architecture, so each application
A client module
An interface module (which has shared objects between the client and implementation)
an implementation module
a war module
I agree that putting that implementation and war module in the same actual module would be ok, but the (arguably) benefit of this is that is very clear division between the classes that solve the problem and how the application communicates with the external world.
In previous projects that involved just a web application, I've tried to put everything in the same module, as it made testing easier, given the modules I was using.
Multi modules can help you with re-use your code.
It's one of the best benefits you'll feel in work.
Imagine if you have 3 web projects with a security layer, You'll have to copy paste your code 3 times and trying connect it with each project.
But what if you create a security module a project with a specific job.
It'll be easy to use it by injecting it to your app and then boom it works.
Also as mentioned in #ben75's answer the one maven build command and the correct order of building all your used jars. You'll think no more about which depends on another.
I find maven modules extremely useful for the following reasons:
Architecture layering and boundaries
For example, I make a maven module application-contract which contains the interfaces my presentation layer sees. So I have UI->Presenter-> application-contract <-application-impl <- infrastructure -> domain. This way, I know that my presentation/UI layer will not have access to classes from my Domain/application layers. If domain classes are not in classpath when I code in UI, I cant use them. And I like it this way (utilizing the class path restrictions). Perhaps Java 9 modules can solve this problem too, but (unfortunately) I have work with Java 8.
Running tests in one module each time
When I change code to a layer which is a module (as mentioned previously) I can run its tests only, without re-runing tests from code I did not change. This gives me speed. My presentation layer tests need ~3 seconds (for 300 tests). Every time I change code to a Presenter or whatever below application layer, I don't want my database H2 integration tests to run. Or My Image processing tests to run. Because these do IO and they are slow.
Building
Pretty much the same thing. When I change code to UI, i have only to build and deploy UI stuff (my UI is in Java).
To reduce database hits, I've used static variables to store data from database.
At time of WAR deployment this data is stored in these variabes as it is not changing so frequently.
This scenario was working fine as the scope was with only single a WAR. Now I have another application where I need access to these varibles
But due to different application scope,I'm unable to access them in another application.
Also I'm having an EAR which encloses both above WAR and one JAR containing some common buisness logic of both WARs.
So under EAR is it possible to share these variables via JAR or using some different approach?
If any javaEE concept can help in this scenario, then please let me know about it also.
I'm using maven with Jboss7.1.1.Final for this
You should use Infinispan, the built-in caching mechanism of JBoss 7 https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/ISPN/Getting+Started+Guide+-+JBoss+AS+7. Caching data in static fields is generally frowned upon in Java EE.
However should you still want to cache your data in static fields you need to make sure the class with the cache was to be shared across all WARs. This means you have to create skinny WARs.
Looks like you need an Enterprise Caching Solutions. There are lots of choices on the market. They include but not limit to
Open Source framework
Memcached
EHCache
Infinispan (mentioned by Phillipe)
Commercial product
Oracle Coherence
GigaSpaces XAP
GemFire
For your second question, as long as your JAR is deployed in the EAR/lib folder, you should be fine.
We are developing a open source trading platform based on Springframework and Hibernate http://code.google.com/p/algo-trader/ and http://www.algotrader.ch. The application consists of a trading framework and several strategies that can be started independently. So far, these different parts have been running in separate JVM's communicating through RMI and JMS.
To avoid unnecessary serialization and network overhead we would like to run the entire application within some sort of container (potentially an application server). We do however have the requirement, that the individual parts of the application can be deployed, started and stopped independently.
We have looked into OSGi, but a lot of the libraries that we use are not OSGi ready yet, so this is not currently an option. Also please note, there is no web-GUI in our application.
Any suggestions on this?
Thanks
Andy
If OSGI is not an option then functionality can be broken into smaller units and then deploy them as utility jar, if deployed as utility jar they can be managed independently.
For application server I feel either glassfish or Jboss will be a good option considering they are open source and free.
Though at a later point in time you can check with Weblogic (Dev free).
So in your case you would like to break the static data configuration(Counterparty, Currencies), Dealing(Pricing, Quoting, Booking) as two separate feature.
For your choose of an application server i advise you Jboss and specially in his version 7.1 which is faster and more stable!