I am running OpenDDS MPC based example stockQuoter. I deleted the run_test.pl, still the project builds and runs properly. why do we need this Perl script?
You don't really need it and you're free to start the programs directly. All examples and tests in OpenDDS have a file called run_test.pl for the purposes of testing. Among other functions, they define what programs get called with what arguments for a certain test scenario and are responsible for killing the programs if they get stuck.
Related
We are getting ready to deploy a Tcl application, but i'm having trouble figuring out how to do it. Currently, I'm experimenting with tclkit and sdx.kit. I can pack a single tcl file and run it, but the structure of the whole application contains folders and images and c files that work together with tcl. i have two folders and inside a bunch of c files and tcl files and other stuff. How would i go and wrap the whole thing. What tool do you guys recommend other than tclkit and why?
The main way that you're recommended to distribute applications is as a tclkit. There are a few alternatives (e.g., TOBE, ActiveState's commercial tooling) but they're pretty similar as they all build on top of Tcl's virtual filesystem layer. (NB. This isn't the same as the Linux VFS stuff; this is a VFS in a single application.) Indeed, the ActiveState tooling actually is a rebadged tclkit (plus some other stuff like code obfuscation). I believe that TOBE uses ZIP archives instead of metakit databases.
The advantage of using a VFS-based solution is that it means that lots of things work inside, particularly including both source (for getting another .tcl file in) and load (for getting a binary library). In fact, you can put your application, the packages it depends on, and the resources (images, etc.) inside the VFS and be fairly sure that things will work. About the only things that we know run into real problems are where you want to exec something in the archive (the VFS mount is process-local; you have to copy the subsidiary file out if you want it to be seen in subprocesses) and if you're wanting to load certificates of private keys with the tls package (because the underlying OpenSSL library doesn't delegate to Tcl to handle that part of its I/O for some reason, AIUI).
When you're building these things, effectively you make a directory (and its subdirectories) that have everything laid out right. Then you run the packager (sdx for tclkits) and it builds the overall application for you. Attach the result to a runtime (the standard tclkit) and you're ready to test and deploy.
We don't generally do tool recommendations here on Stack Overflow, but the ActiveState Tcl Dev Kit is actually rather widely used. Many other people use sdx/tclkit. TOBE is quite a lot rarer. (There are other packaging techniques, but I wouldn't recommend them these days; a packaged VFS works very well indeed.)
I have memory related problem in my application on solaris9 environment where Tcl_DeleteInterp() function calls lot of free() and mutex_unlock() functions. To debug the problem i followed the below steps to compile tcl on solaris server (with TCL_MEM_DEBUG flag) but still i couldn't use the 'memory' command in my interpreter.
Ran configure script on server (./configure –prefix=<directory needs to be installed> --enable-symbols=mem)
Make clean all
Make install (tcl libraries and tlcsh exe is copied to the path specified in step1)
Compilation generated two libraries (libtcl8.4g.so and libtclstub8.4g.a), I copied libtcl8.4g.so as libtcl8.4.so to my app
Copied tcl8.4 directory as well.
I also copied the tclsh8.4 to $PROVHOME/bin and created soft link as tclsh-> tclsh8.4.
From my application i linked the debug symbol enabled libraries to the place where exactly i created the Tcl interpreter.
Initialized the Tcl interpreter to using Tcl_InitMemory() function (so that the memory command will be registered in the supplied(arg) interpreter.
When i used the interpreter exe (tclsh) separately i could execute the memory command, but when i used the same exe on my application its not working. Can someone help me what could be the possible reason for this problem ?
Also help me how can i cross verify the libraries that they are compiled with TCL_MEM_DEBUG flag.
Will the Tcl source code tar file contain Solaris directory where i have to build the libraries or should i use the unix source code for solaris platform as well ?
Thanks
Are you using [mem] interactively (which does expansion of unambiguous short command names) and forgetting to use the full name ([memory]) in your scripts?
You're using Tcl embedded in your code? You need to call Tcl_InitMemory (passing in the handle to the interpreter where you want the memory command created) after creation of the interpreter and before you run user scripts, i.e., straight after the Tcl_CreateInterp gives you the handle (which should in turn come after the Tcl_FindExecutable call that initializes the shared parts of the library).
You must also make sure that everything is built with that flag set so that the correct memory allocation APIs are used in both your code when it integrates with Tcl, and you must make sure that you are linking against the debugging build. It's probably the linking that has gone wrong, but I've not done that level of development on Solaris for many years.
I think you'll find that “Getting a list of used libraries by a running process (unix)” is relevant to your problems.
My build script runs on linux and invokes things like gcc, shell scripts, etc.
Part of the solution is written in mono and could be compiled easily on linux.
But I want to obfuscate the code. Not manually, but as part of the build process.
Therefore I need to invoke Dotfuscator and Dotfuscator so far only runs on windows.
Is there a good solutions to invoke command line based workers/build scripts remotely from linux on a windows machine? I don't just want to run a command remotely, but also pass files along.
Like a windows service that is accessed using simple curl-uploads of a tar file, creates a temp folder for each concurrently connected client (or blocks concurrent calls) and unpacks the file, invokes something on these files and packages the result again as tar file to give it back to the caller? And clears the temp file even in case of failures?
Maybe someone knows a good solution that saves me from writing this myself!
It should not be so uncommon that a build process spans multiple platforms, yet common build server answers I found mainly talk about only one build script.
Also think about running e.g. the nsis setup builder from a linux driven build script, if part of your solution has a tiny windows component
I am using the Ruby Daemon-kit to setup a services that does various background operations for my Rails application.
It works fine when I call in on the commandline:
./bin/bgservice
How do I go about creating a daemon initd starter script for it, so that it will autostart on reboot?
There's a few approaches:
You could write /etc/init.d/ scripts that could be placed into the /etc/rc?.d/ directories (or wherever they live on your target distributions). Some details on this mechanism can be found in the Debian policy guidelines and openSUSE initscript tutorial. There's an annoying number of distribution-specific idiosyncrasies in initscripts, so don't feel about writing a simple one and asking distributions to contribute 'better' ones tailored for their environment. (For example, any Debian-derived distribution will provide the immensely useful start-stop-daemon(8) helper, but it is sorely missing from other distributions.)
You could write upstart job specifications for the distributions that support upstart (which I think is Ubuntu, Google ChromeOS, Fedora, .. more?). upstart documentation is still pretty weak, but there are some details and plenty of examples in /etc/init/ on Ubuntu, probably the same location in other distributions that use upstart. Getting the dependencies correct may be some work across all distributions, but upstart job specifications look far simpler to write and maintain than initscripts.
You could add lines to /etc/inittab on distributions that still support the standard SysV-init inittab(5) file. This would only be useful if your program doesn't do the usual daemon fork(2)/setsid(2)/fork(2) incantation, as init uses the pid it gets from fork(2) to determine if your program needs to be restarted.
Modern Vixie cron(8) supports a #reboot specifier in crontab(5) files. This can be used both by the system crontab as well as user crontabs, which might be nice if you just want to run the program as your usual login account.
As the author of daemon-kit I've avoided making any init-style scripts due to coping with the various distributions and they're migrations from old init-V style to newer upstart/insserv, saving myself a nightmare.
How I recommend to do this is to use the god config-generator, and ensure god is started on boot (by runit or some other means), and god starts the daemon up initially and keeps it running.
At best I'll expand daemon-kit to be able to generate runit scripts for boot...
HTH.
I have an app that I pack into "binary" form using PerlApp for distribution. Since my clients want a simple install for their Win32 systems, this works very nicely.
Now a client has decided that they need to run all unit tests, like in a standard install. However, they still will not install a normal Perl.
So, I find myself in need of a way to package my unit tests for operation on my client's systems.
My first thought was that I could pack up prove in one file and pack each of my tests separately. Then ship a zip file with the appropriate structure.
A bit of research showed that Test::Harness::Straps invokes perl from the command line.
Is there an existing tool that helps with this process?
Perhaps I could use PAR::Packer's parl tool to handle invocation of my test scripts.
I'm interested in thoughts on how to apply either PAR or PerlApp, as well as any thoughts on how to approach overriding Test::Harness and friends.
Thanks.
Update: I don't have my heart set on PAR or PerlApp. Those are just the tools I am familiar with. If you have an idea or a solution that requires a different packager (such as Cava Packager), I would love to hear about it.
Update 2: tsee pointed out a great new feature in PAR that gets me close. Are there any TAP experts out there that can supply some ideas or pointers on where to look in the new Test::Harness distribution?
I'm probably not breaking big news if I tell you that PAR (and probably also perlapp) aren't meant to package the whole test suite and plethora of CPAN-module build byproducts. They're intended to package stand-alone applications or binary JAR-like module libraries.
This being said, you can add arbitrary files to a PAR archive (both to .par libraries and stand-alone .exe's) using pp's -a switch. In case of the stand-alone executable, the contents will be extracted to $ENV{PAR_TEMP}."/inc" at run-time.
That leaves you with the problem of reusing the PAR-packaged executable to run the test harness (and letting that run your executable as a "perl"). Now, I have no ready and done solution for that, but I've recently worked on making PAR-packaged executables re-useable as more-or-less general purpose perl interpreters. Two gotchas before I explain how you can use that:
Your application isn't going to magically be called "perl" and add itself to your $PATH.
The "reuse" of the application as a general purpose perl requires special options and does not currently support the normal perl options (those in perlrun). It can simply run an external perl script of your choice.
Unfortunately, the latter problem is what may kill this approach for you. Support for perl command line options is something I've been thinking about, but won't implement any time soon.
Here's the recipe how you get PAR with "reusable exe" support:
Install the newest version of PAR from CPAN.
Install the newest, developer version of PAR::Packer from CPAN (0.992_02 or 03).
Add the "--reusable" option to your pp command line.
Run your executable with the following options to run an external script "foo.pl":
./myapp --par-options --reuse foo.pl FOO-PL-OPTIONS-HERE
Unfortunately, how you're going to teach Test::Harness that "./myapp --par-options --reuse" is a perl interpreter is beyond me.
Cava Packager allows you to package test scripts with your packaged executables. This is primarily to allow you to run tests against the packaged code before distribution. However the option is there to also distribute the tests and test capability to your end users.
Note: As indicated by my name, I am affiliated with Cava Packager.