I am a new user to github.com and I am trying to create a mobile app that has two parts: client code and server code. The client code will be written in Java for Android, Swift for iOS and C# for Windows Phone. The server side will be written in PHP, HTML, Javascript and CSS.
My question is this: how should I structure the code? Should I put the server code and the client code in different repositories or should I just put them in different folders in the same repository? Also, since there are multiple clients (Android, iOS and Windows) should I put them in different repositories or different folders?
I already know that either one can be done, but I want to know what the standard procedure is and what the advantages/disadvantages are.
There are many possible solutions to this issue. The answer provided by saljuama is the most complete.
After looking at a few projects on github I found that one way to do this is to create separate repositories for the client and the server. If you have multiple client codes (as in my case) you can use the same repository but different makefiles.
I found this way of doing things at https://github.com/CasparCG The server is a different repository than the client. Additionally, the clients share the same src, lib and other folders but the build scripts of each is different. As noted by saljuama this method makes sense when your clients are sharing the same codebase. If your clients do not share the same codebase see saljuama's answer.
This is not the only possible way. You can do it in your own way.
The topic is quite broad and it might be opinion based, but I'll try to stay as neutral as possible.
According to the 12factor first principle codebase, each application should have its own codebase (or repository). Since client and server are different applications, they shouldn't share the same repo.
One reason of why having both in the same repository is a bad idea, is when using Continous Integration and Continous Delivery systems. Since a repository push is what usually triggers these processes, performing a change on one of the sides would make the CI/CD server to process both sides of the application, when there is no need for it.
The rest of the reasons I can think of, are subject to be categorized as opinion based, so I won't state them.
Update:
To answer to the update on your question, if the different clients have the exact same codebase, if you keep reading about the 12-factor app principles, configuration and builds, then one repo is what you should use.
Related
Background: I'm using jira for bug tracking, and git for source control. I've got a complete end-to-end system comprising of an iOS front end, and a Java/Tomcat back end that provides web services and a GUI. Right now I've got a single git repository holding all the software and a single jira project tracking issues for the whole system.
Now that the software is live, I'm finding that changes are being made to either the iOS application or the server, but generally not both. The version numbers of the two components have diverged somewhat.
It's probably too late for this project, but in future:
Should I pursue the path of having all related components in a single source repository and tracked using a single bug-tracking project; or
Should each component be in a separate repository and be managed by a separate bug-tracking project?
I can see pro's and con's for both approaches, and I can also see that the answer could easily be "it depends".
Which way would you lean, and why?
I'd go with distinct source repositories for a few reasons
The developers working on the two are likely to have distinct
skill sets. Also, you may have management reasons for wanting to
segregate who sees what.
They should not be tightly tied at a protocol level - different versions need to interact.
The first point becomes even more important when you do another front end
The second reason is my main one.
However, I'd go with a common bug database. Defects/features may need changes on both ends. Also, it is extremely likely you will have bugs that are believed to be in one component but actually end up fixed in the other. If you try to migrate across databases, information will get lost. I've seen that too many times.
First I should disclose I only manage vendor relationships and lack deep technical knowledge.
I just had a conference call with one of our sub-contractors who has asked me to sign off on a PO for 4 different servers (one for Jenkins another for Github, a third for Puppet and a fourth as a test box).
The technical architect seems quite defensive when I ask him questions. I know its not my job to question his ability but I do have a budget to manage and I am concerned they have over- engineered this (or at least the 3 products they have mentioned seem to overlap alot).
Would someone be so kind as to clearly explain to me the role each one plays.
I would also appreciate a second opinion as to whether they really need 4 servers and whether some of the technologies mentioned could co-exist on the same servers. (i.e could Jenkins, Github and Puppet all live on a single Ubuntu server ?).
The 4 tools do not overlap. They interact and complement altogether.
GIT is the source control tool. You store all the history of programming there. It's the dev blackbox.
Jenkins is the continuous integration tool. It will use GIT to get the latest version of the code ( or the testing version or the pre-production version ) to test it against the test patterns you defined.
Puppet seems to be a server administration toolbox.
Honestly, it depends on your project. If it's a huge app that requires heavy building cycles, then jenkins will be better off on its own server, so that people can still work normally with other services.
I believe Jenkins/Puppet could be on the same server. Or so could be Pupper and GIT ( git is very low resource ).
The testbox sounds ok. But I think that the GIT box could also be served as a testbox.
I think you could cut that server needs by 2. But again, it depends on the size of your project. If it's a big project, play it fair and let them do it. Even if the server split is a little strange, it could be necessary.
But frankly I think you don't really need that.
In our small office we're setting up mercurial - our first time using a "real" version control system. We've got three servers - a live server, a staging server and a development server.
We've also got three relatively large web sites - one for visitors, one for users and an intranet site, for the office staff.
The three web sites share some code. (for instance - a php class library, some commonly used code snippets, etc.)
Before version control, we just used symbolic links to link to the shared libraries. For example: each site had a symbolic link to an "ObjectClasses" directory - any changes made to a file in ObjectClasses would be instantly available to all the sites. You'd just upload the changed file to staging and to live, and you were done.
But... Mercurial doesn't follow symbolic links. So I've set up a subrepository for the shared libraries in the three sites on the three servers (actually 'four' servers if you count the fact that there are two programmers with two separate clones of the repository on the development server).
So there are 12 working copies of the shared object library.
So here's the question:
Is there any way to simplify the above set up?
Here's an example of what our workflow will be and it seems too complicated - but maybe this is what it's like using version control and we just need to get used to it:
Programmer A makes a change to Object Foo in the subrepo in Site 1. He wants to make this available everywhere, so he commits it, then pushes it to the staging server. I set up hooks on the staging server to automatically propogate the changes to the three sites, on the staging server, and again to the three sites on the live server. That takes care of the 6 working copies on the staging and live servers. So far, so good.
but what about the development server, where there may be work-in-progress on these files?
Programmer A now needs to manually pull the shared subrepo to Sites 2 and 3 on the development server. He also needs to tell Programmer B to manually pull the shared subrepo on Sites 1, 2 and 3 on his copy of the site on the development server. What if he's editing Object Foo on Site 1 and making different edits to Object Foo on Site 2. He's going to have to resolve two separate conflicts.
We make changes to the objects relatively frequently. This is going to drive us nuts. I really love the idea of version control - but after two weeks of wrestling with trying to find the best setup, the old sloppy way of having one copy of the shared files and calling out "hey - ya working on that file, I wanna make a change" is looking pretty good right now.
Is there really no simpler way to set this up?
Without more information about the specific web platform and technologies you're using (e.g., .NET, LAMP, ColdFusion, etc.), this answer may be inadequate, but let me take a stab nevertheless. First, if I understand you correctly, it's your working paradigm that's the problem. You're having developers make changes to files and then push them to three different sites. I suggest separating the development concerns altogether from the build/deploy concerns.
It sounds like you're using subrepositories in Mercurial to handle shared code--which is smart, by the way--so that's good. That takes care of sharing code across multiple projects. But rather than have each programmer pushing stuff to a given server after he updates it, have the programmers instead be pushing to some other "staging" repository. You could have one for each of your servers if you wish, though I think it probably makes more sense to keep all development in a single staging or "master" repository which is then used to build/deploy to your staging and/or live server.
If you wish to automate this process, there are a number of tools that can do this. I usually prefer NAnt with CruiseControl for build integration, but then my work is mostly .NET which makes it a great fit. If you can provide more specifics I can provide more details if you like, but I think the main problem for you to overcome is the way you're handling the workflow. Use Mercurial to keep multiple developers happy pulling/pushing from a single repository and then worry about deploying to your servers for testing as a separate step.
We have an application at work which is web-based and comes with a bundled web server (Apache tomcat), and is for network monitoring/patch management. It allows for personalisation, all sorts of rules, custom UI design using proprietary components and definition language, and even custom code to fire on events (based on Java).
I am in a team of several developers, each of who will be customising this app to meet various requirements. As it's a server app, not a codebase, what's the best way to setup a dev environment for >1 user?
If there is one single shared VM with this app, I don't know how good source control like TFS would work with this sort of system? I think also, developers working on various parts of the project may even need the same file at the same time (though TFS does do multiple check-outs).
What is the best way to develop against this sort of product? Bare in mind, even with personal VMs and an instance of the app, changes have to be merged to one central instance. Something keeps making me think about how app-virtualisation could help with this?
Thanks
If it is just an instance of Tomcat (even though it was bundled) couldn't you put the whole Tomcat directory and all of its subdirectories under source control? You just need to check in the non-binary parts, so exclude all the .jar, .exe, .tar.gz and .dll files when you check in. That's what I would do, unless I misunderstood your question.
I'm not familiar with the source control software that you mentioned. I have been using SVN (which is free) and TortoiseSVN as a client (also free). Just an option if your software can't support what I've suggested.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Web developing isn't what it used to be. It used to consist of hacking together a few PHP scripts (I have nothing against PHP, actually it's currently my main programming language), uploading them via FTP to some webhost and that was that. Today, things are more complicated. As I can see by looking at a number of professional and modern websites (SO being the main one, I consider SO being a great example of good practice in web developing, even if it's made with ASP.NET and hosted on Windows), developing a website is much more than that:
The website code is actually in a repository (that little svn revision in the footer makes my nerdy feelings tingle);
Static files (CSS, JavaScript, images) are stored on a separate domain;
Ok, these were my observations. Now for my questions:
What do you do with JavaScript and CSS files? Do you just not keep them under version control? That would seem stupid. Do you create a separate repository for them?
How do you set up the repository? Do you just create one in the root of the web server? Or do you create some sort of post-commit trigger that copies the latest files to their appropriate destinations?
What happens if you have multiple machines running the website and want to push some changes to all of them?
Every such project has to have configuration files. These differ from the local repository to the remote one. For example, on my development machine I have no MySQL root password, while on the production server I certainly have a password. This password would be stored in a config file, amongst other such things, which would be completely different on my machine and on the server. Maybe they are different between production machines, too (like I said earlier, maybe the website runs on multiple machines for load balancing). How do I handle that?
I'm looking to start a new web project using:
Python + SQLAlchemy + Werkzeug + Jinja2
Apache httpd + modwsgi
MySQL
Mercurial
What I'd like is some best practice advice on using the aforementioned tools and answers to my questions above.
You're right, things can get complicated when trying to deploy a scalable website. Here are what I've found to be a few good guidelines (disclaimer: I'm a rails engineer):
Most of the decisions regarding file structure for your code repository are largely based upon the convention of the language, framework and platform you choose to implement. Many of the questions you brought up (JS, CSS, assets, production vs development) is handled with Rails. However, that may differ from PHP to Python to whichever other language you want to use. I've found you should do some research about what language you're choosing to use, and try to find a way to fit the convention of that community. This will help you when you're trying to find help on an obstacle later. Your code will be organized like their code, and you'll be able to get answers more easily.
I would version control everything that isn't very substantial in size. The only problem I've found with VC is when your repo gets large. Apart from that I've never regretted keeping a version of previous code.
For deployment to multiple servers, there are many scripts that can help you accomplish what you need to do. For Ruby/Rails, the most widely used tool is Capistrano. There are comparable resources for other languages as well. Basically you just need to configure what your server setup is like, and then write or look to open source for a set of scripts that can deploy/rollback/manipulate your codebase to the servers you've outlined in your config file.
Development vs Production is an important distinction to make. While you can operate without that distinction, it becomes cumbersome quickly when you're having to patch up code all over your repository. If I were you, I'd write some code that is run at the beginning of every request that determines what environment you're running in. Then you have that knowledge available to you as you process that request. This information can be used when you specify which configuration you want to use when you connect to your db, all the way to showing debug information in the browser only on development. It comes in handy.
Being RESTful often dictates much of your design with regards to how your site's pages are discovered. Trying to keep your code within the restful framework helps you remember where your code is located, keeps your routing predictable, keeps your code from becoming too coupled, and follows a convention that is becoming more and more accepted. There are obviously other conventions that can accomplish these same goals, but I've had a great experience using REST and it's improved my code substantially.
All that being said. I've found that while you can have good intentions to make a pristine codebase that can scale infinitely and is nice and clean, it rarely turns out this way. If I were you, I'd do a small amount of research on what you feel the most comfortable with and what will help make your life easier, and go with that.
Hopefully that helps!
While I have little experience working with the tools you've mentioned, except for MySQL, I can give you a few fairly standard answers for the questions you posted.
1) Depends on the details, but most often you keep them in the same repository but in a separate folder.
2) Just because something is commited to the repository doesn't mean that it's ready to go live - it's quite often an intermediary build that could be riddled with bugs. A publish is done manually, with an export from the repository. Setting up the webserver in the same folder as a svn checkout is a huge nono as the .svn folder contains quite a bit of sensitive information, such as how to push changes to the svn server.
3) You use some sort of NAS or SAN solution, or simply a network share on one of the servers, and read all your data from there. That way, when you push information to one place, it's accessible by all servers. If your network is slow, you set up scripts that pushes the files out to all the servers automatically from a single location. If you use a multi-server environment in ASP.NET, don't forget to update the machine key in the config files or your shared encrypted caches, like the viewstate, won't work across servers. Having a session store in a database is also a good idea.
4) I've got a post build step that only triggers on publish that replaces my database connectionstrings with production ones, and also changes my Production app config value from false to true in the published web.config/app.config files. I can't see any case where you'd want different config files for different servers serving the same content.
If something is unclear, just comment and I'll try to clarify.
Good luck! // Eric Johansson
I think you are mixing 2 different aspects, source control and deployment. Just because you have all your files in a single repository doesnt mean they have to be deployed that way. Its also arguable whether you should be deploying directly using source control or instead using a build/deploy script which could handle any number of configurations.
Also hosting static files on a seperate domain only really becomes worthwhile on high traffic websites. Are you sure you aren't prematurely optimising?