Bug 1050014 - Cannot deploy bundle to EAP domain mode

Thomas Segismont tsegismo at redhat.com
Tue Jun 10 12:08:14 UTC 2014


Hi everyone,

I'm writing to talk about a feature request: Bug 1050014 - Cannot deploy 
bundle to EAP domain mode [1]

The problem is that the ANT and FileTemplate bundle types are file 
based, and domain deployments are only possible through the management 
API or the EAP CLI.

The requirements of this RFE are as follows:
* being able to deploy an application archive to a domain controller
* being able to execute EAP CLI scripts
* the implementation should work with standalone servers

The solution should take into account that we are also trying to solve 
the EAP patching problem (see Bug 1069547 - Support EAP 6.2/6.3 style 
patching [2] and PR39 on GitHub [3]).

We discussed the RFE with Lukas and Jay some time ago but I wasn't able 
to write up the conclusions until now. So here it goes.






1. Extend ANT bundle type to communicate with resource components

Resource component would implement a new facet (name to be defined), and 
the methods of this facet would let the user pass some content. The 
resource component would do whatever it needs to and the bundle agent 
plugin wouldn't try to lay down this content on the system.

Here's how an ANT bundle would look like:

<rhq:deployment-unit name="xxxxxx">
  <rhq:file name="myapp.war" handover="deploy"/>
  <rhq:file name="myscript.cli" handover="executeCLI"/>
</rhq:deployment-unit>

or

<rhq:deployment-unit name="xxxxxx">
  <rhq:file name="patch-eap-6.xxx" handover="patch"/>
</rhq:deployment-unit>


See? The key here is the new "handover" attribute that users could add 
to rhq:file, rhq:url-file, rhq:archive and rhq:url-archive.

Pros:
* General purpose solution, could be applied to EAP patching as well

Cons:
* For patching, a recipe and bundle file would have to be created 
instead of just the patch zip file






2. Create a new bundle type

This is what Lukas started when he wrote his pull request for EAP 
patching  support

Pros:
* The concept is already proven by PR39

Cons:
* Yet another bundle type, and only applicable to a specific resource type
* Less powerful than an ANT bundle: users will be able to deploy apps 
and execute CLI scripts but nothing else






We'd be very happy to hear from you on this topic. Which solution do you 
prefer? Hopefully you don't find both solutions ugly...

Regards,
Thomas


[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050014
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069547
[3] https://github.com/rhq-project/rhq/pull/39


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list