We are using JBoss 7.1, with an Apache upfront (proxying the requests to the right place).
I need to separate my EAR project into several WARs (and one JAR), because it is becoming too large.
I wonder whether I should use several EARs and duplicate the JAR, or use the same EAR with several WARs.
The second option seems best to me (no duplicate code), but I would like to be able to redeploy only one WAR. But when I modify one WAR folder inside the EAR, the whole EAR gets redeployed.
Is that normal?
What's the best practice for managing several WARs related to the same backend logic (same EJB/JAR).
Thanks!
Related
I have a problem when deploying two ear files in Jboss 7 and would be thankful for your help.
Following scenario:
EAR 1 contains EJBs which are looked up by EAR 2 (also) at server startup. Thus, EAR 1 has to be deployed before EAR 2 (via jboss-deployment-structure.xml dependency settings).
Right after being deployed, EAR 1 also needs access to classes contained in EAR 2 because of Hibernate and JNDI related class loading (among others).
But as EAR 2 isn't deployed at that time, there's a need for EAR 1 to contain a client-jar file of EAR 2.
Now, the problem is that in the course of EAR 1 and EAR 2 configuration (at server startup) ClassCastExceptions occur because...
(non-EJB) Java object obj1, whose class C was loaded by the classloader of EAR 1, is bound in JNDI
and after being looked up, supposed to be cast to object obj2 whose class C was loaded by the classloader of EAR 2
Now I wonder, if there's a possibility that these common classes of EAR 1 and EAR 2 are being loaded with the same classloader in JBoss 7. I already tried to put them in a server module, which didn't work out.
Thanks a lot for your help in advance!
PS: I'm aware of the poor design declared above. But due to restrictions, I have to follow up on it.
To avoid class cast exceptions, the common libraries need to be put in a classloader that is common to all applications in the two EARs, and no other copies of those libraries should exist in each application.
If it's an option to use only one EAR instead of two, put all the WARs inside a single EAR, remove the common classes from the WARs and put them on the EAR library folder.
This will associate the common classes to the EAR classloader, which is common to all the applications running inside a EAR, so that would solve the problem.
If you must use two EARS, then the common classes need to be put in a classloader at the level of the server shared by all applications.
JBoss 7 is an OSGI based container that allows to create an isolated module with a few jars and link it to an application. So if you try this:
create a module with the common library AND it's dependencies, see instructions here
link the module to all applications
remove the copies of those libraries from all applications and leave them only at the module
It will work fine, but don't forget to put the dependencies of the common library in the module as well otherwise it will not work, the dependencies need to be visible at the level of the module, and there can be no duplicate jars between module and applications (otherwise class cast exceptions might happen).
Another way far less recommendable but it would also work, is to put the common classes at the level of the common classloader, see this diagram. The common classloader folder is located at $CATALINA_HOME/lib (Jboss is based internally on Tomcat).
Specially if there are other applications running in that server don't try the second option. It could help to have a look at a tool I built for these type of issues, JHades.
We are going from a single WAR to multiple WARs to be repackaged within an EAR file in JBoss. I would like to be able to do the following:
Move common libraries to under the root of the new EAR so that they don't have to be duplicated within each of the WARs (I suppose under $EAR_ROOT/lib?).
Move the *-ds.xml file from under $JBOSS_HOME/server//deploy to under the EAR so that the datasource is scoped to the application (at least from a packaging standpoint - I realize there is no preventing a JNDI lookup from other WAR, that's okay).
Repackage the Hibernate DAOs and dependencies to a new to-be-shared JAR file and put them in the common location as well (to be shared by both the WARs).
I have some sense on what needs to happen but could use some help so that I don't have to create all of this structure and the related Ant/Maven targets/goals from scratch. For instance, should the datasource file be referenced in jboss-app.xml or in application.xml directly?
There seem to be multiple ways of skinning this cat and I am looking for a nice, clean example to do this (in the interest of not having to reinvent the wheel).
Use JBoss Developer Studio, it does all that for you
In my office we use exploded EAR's (and inside them exploded WAR directories) for our test environments, and then a packaged one for production. I've yet to find a good explanation of the reason behind this though. I understand it's easier from a deployment perspective to push out a single file during builds, but it prevents us from doing things like property file changes without doing complete rebuilds (we could skip the compiles, but our environment currently binds the compile and jar processes together).
What are the major advantages / disadvantages between these two configurations?
Even if you deploy a single .ear file, the appserver will unpack it before using it, as well as unpacking the WARs inside that, and sometimes even the JARs also.
So the only benefit of single .ear files is one of deployment convenience.
Exploded ear - easy to update and manipulate individual prop files, class files, jsps and make surgical changes. You do from time to time wonder if the latest production code has all the latest changes because you move each file individually and it would be easy to forget something. When you deploy, you know exactly what file is being changed with a packaged ear you are updating every single class, jar, jsp in one fell swoop.
Packaged ear - simple, easy to deploy, you know with each deployment you are move ALL the latest changes. prop files are really weird when using an ear, you have to put them on the server(container) and create some kind of absolute path so you know where they are and they are separate from your ear build.
I think I prefer the exploded ear.
I have a few separate application projects (EARs) with multiple EJBs that I want to deploy to the same JBoss server. Now, some of the projects may have the same EJBs, but different versions. In similar circumstances, some projects may use different versions of the same "ordinary" classes (i.e. classes loaded within VM, without JNDI lookup).
With OC4J, this seems not to have been a problem, but now with JBoss, I get the impression that everything resides in the same "name space" (or class loader perhaps). Am I correct in this assumption?
Basically, what I want to do (or ensure) are two things:
From a client that does a JNDI-lookup of an EJB, I want to be able to indicate which application it resides in, so that the correct version of the EJB is returned.
From within an EJB, when instantiating a class, I want to ensure that the class is the one deployed with the same application (EAR) as the EJB was.
I think I read that you could configure some "isolation" properties for EJBs, am I guessing correctly in that might would solve my second point?
JBoss's default behaviour is to use a flat classloader. This reduces the footprint, but as you've found, it makes deploying multiple applications troublesome.
Thankfully, the fix is easy. In the ear-deployer.xml file in the deploy directory, make sure the following parameter is set:
<attribute name="Isolated">true</attribute>
This will give each deployed EAR its own classloader space. It will still be able to access stuff from the JBoss lib directory, but the deployed EARs will be invisible to each other.
You're correct that classes from different EAR's reside in the same "space". JBoss uses by default a flat classloader hierarchy, meaning that all classes (except for WAR packaged ones) are loaded by the same classloader. With the introduction of JBoss 5 there's a new standard profile that strictly follows the Java EE rules and thus supports isolated classloading. Older JBoss versions also support this behavior through the callByValue and isolate properties in the deployer configuraion.
I am in the process of designing a build system and the directory structure for a large software system developed with Java EE 5. The build system will be implemented using ant.
We have multiple different services, which are grouped thematically. Each service offers either a web service or EJBs. Each service runs on a dedicated application server cluster. Thus, we have multiple clusters and some of these clusters can be grouped logically by topics.
I did read generic definitions and examples, but I am still confused about the Java EE terminology:
What is a Java EE application? And thus, what is the content of an EAR file?
What is a Java EE Project? (the term is used by Netbeans as well as in the Java Blueprints Guidelines Project Conventions for Enterprise Applications)
Do I have to put all EJB and WAR-module-package-files into one single EAR, so that this single EAR contains our complete system?
Or do I put each group of services into one EAR, despite the fact that these services are only grouped logically but not technically?
Or do I assemble a separate EAR for each service, i.e. most often only containing a single EJB jar file and sometimes and EJB and a WAR file?
Or do I dismiss the concept of applications and merely build EJB and WAR files, so that I have exactly one deployment file for each application server cluster?
I guess, my main question is: What are the advantages of packaging EAR files?
As I see it at the moment, there is only the need for EAR-EJB and WAR files and additionally the concept of nested subproject in the ant-build-system and the directory structure of our source?
Edit: Thanks a lot for the answers! It seems to me that an application packaged into an ear is a rather atomic subsystem. So I guess, that I will have a nested subproject-structure (only logical, visible only to the build system and in the directory structure of the source) and a rather large amount of EARs, each of those containing mostly only one ejb-jar and/or war module and implementing a single service (which is deployed on a single application server cluster).
I think what you decide to put in each EAR is governed by organizational and technical issues.
I think most important technical role of an EAR is a classloader root in a runtime environment. This normally means you can deploy different versions of libraries and your own classes in different EAR's. This means you should keep your container root classpath fairly empty (or as supplied by the container vendor), because it may allow one phsyical container to service multiple applications using possibly conflicting libraries. This is great news if you're developing a number of different applications using a common code-base. You can have a number of projects deploying to the same farm of servers without messing up for eachother.
You will normally never deploy a smaller unit of software than the EAR. Each EAR can be more or less fully self-contained. I would normally let the content of these refelect what the owning organization thinks of as applications or subsystems. You can usually package the same components in multiple EAR's.
Lots of questions here.
Java EE projects are either EAR or WAR deployments that use Java EE technology. If you have a WAR with JSPs and JDBC access of a relational database, that's a Java EE project. The original intent was that EAR files were "enterprise", and that meant EJBs. An EAR file an contain EJBs, WARs, JARs, the whole enchilada.
Thinking in terms of services are a little different. I think deployment deserves careful consideration, because components that are packaged together must be brought down and up together if any maintenance has to be done.
So think carefully about how you package your services. It's not an all or none blanket answer, IMO. You should look at what your services are doing and how they might be used together to decide how they should be packaged and deployed.
Both Logical and Organizational considerations come into play. Each EAR would contain all the pieces that are related for a particular capability. We can always assume that each EAR will be self contained and can be deployed on one or more containers. The typical approach that I have always followed is to have each EAR contain one or more jars and wars. Each war or jar contains some key component or set of related components. The EAR represents an Enterprise application that contains the components and web apps for the application.
An Example is a Payment processing system I was involved in.
The EAR contained everything required to run the Payment Processing system. This included half a dozen jars and 3 wars. Each jar represented some functionality or logical grouping of functionality. Each war represented a web app.
An example of the jar's composition:
a jar for core functionality
a jar for ejbs
a jar for our advanced financial math pieces
a jar for our security pieces
etc.
Having multiple jars was dictated by the fact that different people developed different pieces so they worked in different Eclipse projects and combined them all as needed.
There are no hard and fast rules, just whatever works for your team and situation.