i need to be able to configure JBOSS as 7.2 to only startup the services required in the project.
what is the best aproach to customize JBOSS as 7.2 configuration and set it to a user defined configuration ?
i'm intending to use :
JAAS , EJB , JSF ..
If I understand your request correctly,
it would be removing the unnecessary subsystems.
In standalone, you can configure multiple xmls per your use, and decide the standalone config to use at startup, which would allow you to adapt to various needs quickly.
In domain, it's even easier as you can define various profiles, each of them with specific subsystems present or not, and then assign the necessary profile to your server group.
Removing subsystems through xml modification or CLI is simple,
adding them through CLI sometimes require figuring some of the "default" expected entries for recreation of the subsystems, but once figured out, is easy also.
Key element in your case is to make sure you do not clean up too many of the subsystems, as they sometimes have dependencies to one another.
Related
We have a multi-tenancy website. We are trying to use social share components where the url needs to be shared. Since we have a dispatcher configured, we are picking up the domain from a context aware configuration. How do we use different domains for environments based on run-modes
I have tried to use different ca-config folder for each environment but this is not ideal.
Sling context aware configurations don't work on run modes. For your current requirement you should be using Externalizer service which works basis sling maps, request origin and OSGI configs based on what method you choose.
https://helpx.adobe.com/in/experience-manager/6-3/sites/developing/using/externalizer.html
https://helpx.adobe.com/experience-manager/6-4/sites/developing/using/reference-materials/javadoc/com/day/cq/commons/Externalizer.html
You can use Day CQ Link Externalizer which is available in the OSGI configurations, http://localhost:4502/system/console/configMgr.
It is an OSGI service that allows you to programmatic-ally transform a resource path into an external and absolute URL. You can configure this configuration for different run modes
You can also use a 2-step approach. 1st you create a Run-Mode dependent OSGi config. 2nd you use the built-in Override via OSGi configuration.
See here: https://sling.apache.org/documentation/bundles/context-aware-configuration/context-aware-configuration-override.html#override-via-osgi-configuration
First of all, sorry if this thread is not appropiated in Stack Overflow, but I think that is the best place of all.
We are using Rancher to manage a microservices solution. Most of the containers are NodeJS + Express apps, but there are others like Mongo or Identity Server.
We use many environment variables like endpoints or environment constants and, when we upgrade some of the containers individually, we forget to include them (most of the times, the person who deploys an upgrade is not the person who made the new version).
So, we're looking a way to manage them. We know that using a Dockerfile could be the best way, but if we need to upgrade just one container, we think that is too many work for just a minor change.
TLDR; How do you manage your enviromental variables in Rancher? How do you document them or how you extract them automatically?
Thanks!
Applications in Rancher are generally managed using Stacks/Services. Dockerfile is used to build a container image. docker-compose/rancher-compose files are used to define the applications. The environment variables can be specified in docker-compose file.
When you upgrade a service in rancher, the environment variables information is carried forward and also it's possible to edit them before upgrade.
Also Rancher "Catalog" feature might be something useful for you. Checkout: https://rancher.com/docs/rancher/v1.6/en/catalog/
We have jboss logging enabled in our application. Currently we are using the 'Rotating-file-handler' to log everything to files. This is defined in the jboss 'standalone.xml' file. We are looking into logging some of the information into a logging database as well; for the sake of building indicators etc.
Can someone offer some options that we can utilize here. Our end goal is that as things are being written to the file; we would intercept and write it to DB. We dont want to do that in-line since that would be a blocking call.
This link shows EXACTLY how to set up what i wanted. JBoss AS 7.0.1 has a feature to support custom log handlers.
http://community.jboss.org/wiki/CustomLogHandlersOn701
So I'm not sure what the best way to accomplish this is, but basically I have a laptop that I use at work for Maven projects. It works fine when I'm at work, but as soon as I walk out of the door of their corporate proxy and maven server, I often have to do alot of hand-fudging of the settings.xml file when I'm at home if I'm not VPN'ed in:
We have a corporate-installed Maven Repository proxy server to store some of our own artifacts and handle being the middle-man for our commonly used artifacts.
We have an http proxy that we use for connecting to the outside world.
Both configurations have been handled by my settings.xml file for setting a single Nexus group and maven proxies. If I'm not connected to the VPN while away from the office, I have to muck around with the settings.xml each time I'm not on it, then switch it back when I am on it.
What solutions have anyone else found to handle this? I've been trying profiles to manage the proxy, but I can't seem to get it to work correctly, and it's starting to look pretty ugly. Are there some settings configurations that can detect when I'm not behind the proxy at work and not use the corporate proxy server or Maven server?
While I can think of some profile based solution to handle the proxy (basically, reading the <active> value from a property defined in a profile), this wouldn't be fully automated (the profile activation do not support network based stuff) unless you can find a file that is present or not depending on your location (in which case, you could use an existing/missing file trigger but this is kinda hacky). Anyway, this would solve only one part of the problem because mirrors can't be declared in profiles (see MNG-3525).
So, instead of trying to control this with a profile, my suggestion would be to use two settings.xml and to pass your settings-home.xml file with the -s command line option when you're at home.
Another option would be to automate the changes in your settings.xml with a script (Groovy would be a good choice as someone reported in MNG-3525).
I found a use environment variables to set nonProxyHosts together with proxy and noproxy shell aliases to be the most convenient solution when switching between networks with proxy and without it.
In settings.xml, configure proxy with
<host>proxy.corporation.int</host>
<port>8080</port>
<nonProxyHosts>${env.MAVEN_NONPROXY}</nonProxyHosts>
Then in ~/.profile set
export MAVEN_NONPROXY_PROXY='*.corporation.int|local.net|some.host.com'
export MAVEN_NONPROXY_NOPROXY='*'
alias proxy="export MAVEN_NONPROXY=\"$MAVEN_NONPROXY_PROXY\" && export all_proxy=http://proxy.corporation.int:8080"
alias noproxy="export MAVEN_NONPROXY=\"$MAVEN_NONPROXY_NOPROXY\" && unset all_proxy"
To do the switch when roaming, you would just execute from a shell:
[me#linuxbox me]$ proxy
or
[me#linuxbox me]$ noproxy
Obviously, both aliases proxy and noproxy can include much more changes than just setup of MAVEN_NOPROXY and all_proxy.
I was frustrated by the same problem: having to manually edit settings.xml when roaming between networks. So much in fact, that I wrote a Maven plugin that enables automatic discovery of proxy settings. The current implementation uses the proxy-vole library written by Bernd Rosstauscher to detect proxy settings based on OS configuration, browser, and environment settings.
I've just released the source code of the plugin on Github, under an Apache 2.0 license: https://github.com/volkertb/autoproxy-maven-plugin
You're welcome to give it a try and to see if it meets your needs. Any feedback or contributions are welcome!
(Note: you don't necessarily have to add the plugin to your project's POM. You can invoke it from the command line as well, after you've installed it. See the README on the site for more details.)
You can set MAVEN_OPTS when you need to activate a proxy:
export MAVEN_OPTS="-Dhttp.proxyHost=my-proxy-server -Dhttp.proxyPort=80 -Dhttp.nonProxyHosts=*.my.org -Dhttps.proxyHost=my-proxy-server -Dhttps.proxyPort=80 -Dhttps.nonProxyHosts=*.my.org"
Has any put much thought into this? Personally, I think managing endpoints in configuration files are a pain. Are there any pros/cons to doing one over the other?
Only points in favour of configuration files from me.
Managing endpoints in configuration files mean that you don't have to update your application if (or perhaps I should say when) the endpoints change.
You can also have several instances of the application running with different endpoints.
I tend to like the config approach myself too, other than the config file can get pretty big.
The one thing I have noticed with WCF configuration is that there is a lot of stuff that you can do from code that you can't do in XML config without adding your own custom extensions. In other words, doing config in code will allow more flexibility, of course you could also just code your own extensions and use those from configuration.
However, do note that there is what I would consider a 'bug' in Visual Studio that if you start making your own extensions and including them in XML, then VS won't like your config file any more and will tag them as errors, and then if you try to add a new service through the wizards, it will fail to add the endpoint to the configuration.
This is sort of a followup to my own answer:
After months of having everything in xml configuration, I'm changing everything to construct the endpoints and bindings in code. I found a really good case for having it in code;
When you want to have a deployable / sharable .dll that contains WCF clients.
So for example if you have a CommonClients.dll that contains all your WCF interfaces and contracts to communicate with some remote server, then you don't want to also say "here is 100 lines of xml that you also have to drop into your app.config for every client to make it work". Having it all constructed in code works out much better in this case.
There is also a "feature" of .NET 3.5 where if you have some wcf extensions, you have to specify the fully qualified assembly name. This means that if your assembly containing the extensions changes the version nnumber, you have to go change the assembly name in the config file too. It is supposedly fixed in .NET 4 to use a short assembly name and not require the full name.
Offhand, an endpoint in a config file doesn't need to be recompiled when it's changed. This also means that you just need to update your config file when moving an application from Development to UAT to Production.
If your just coding something for your own use at home, then there's no real difference. However in a business environment, having the enpoint defined in your config file saves all sorts of headaches.
When using an app.config, your application does not need to be recompiled to adjust to a change. Also it can be resused in multiple situations with the exact same code. Finally, hardcoding your endpoints (or anything subject to change) is poor coding practice. Don't fear the configuration file, it's declarative programming. You say, "I want to use this endpoint." and it does the work for you.
I generally do programmatic configuration, as I don't want to expose my applications internal structure the the user. The only thing I keep configurable is service address, but even this I keep in userSettings section, not system.ServiceModel.
I prefer and recommend the configuration file approach. It offeres a lot of flexibility by allowing to make change to your server without the need to recompile the applcation.
If you need security, you can encrypt the config file.
The biggest worry with plain config files could be that it can be accidentally (or on purpose) modified by the end user causing your app to crash. To overcome this you could make some tests in code to check the configuration is ok in the config file and if not, initialize it programatically to some defaults. I presented how you could do that in another answer to this question.
It's just a question of how much flexibility you need.
Usually I prefer the config file approach.
Check out the .NET StockTrader app. It uses a repository to store config data and has a separate app to manage the configuration. The setup and structure is pretty advanced and there's a fair bit of head scratching for anyone like me that only has the basics of WCF configuration so far, but I would say it's worth a look.