I was used to manage versions with a tag in Git. But that was a long time ago, for stand-alone applications. Now the problem is that I have a web application, and at the same application might connect clients that expect to communicate to different versions of the application.
So, I added to the input a path variable for the version in that way :
#PathParam("version") String version
And the client can specify the version in the URL:
https://whatever.com/v.2/show
Then across the code I added conditions like this:
if(version.equals("v.2") {
// Do something
}
else if(version.equals("v.3") {
// Do something else
}
else {
// Or something different
}
The problem is that my code is becoming very messy. So I decided to do in a different way. I added this condition only in one point of the code, and from there I call different classes according to the version:
MyClassVersion2.java
MyClassVersion3.java
MyClassVersion4.java
The problem now is that I have a lot of duplication.
And I want to solve this problem as well. How can I do now to have a web application that:
1) Deal with multiple versions
2) It is not messy (with a lot of conditions)
3) Doesn't have much duplication
Normally, when we speak of an old version of an application, we mean that the behavior and appearance of that version is cast in stone and does not change. If you make even the slightest modification to the source files of that application, then its behavior and/or appearance may change, (and according to Murphy's law it will change,) which is unacceptable.
So, if I were you, I would lock all the source files of the old version in the source code repository, so that nobody can commit to them, ever. This approach solves the problem and dictates how you have to go about everything else: Every version would have to have its own set of source files which would be completely unrelated to the source files of all other versions.
Now, if the old versions of the application must have something in common with the newest version, and this thing changes, (say, the database,) then we are not exactly talking about different versions of the application, we have something more akin to different skins: The core of the application evolves, but users who picked a skin some time ago are allowed to stick with that skin. In this case, the polymorphism solution which has already been suggested by others might be a better approach.
your version number is in a place in the URL named the 'Context Root'.
You could release multiple different WAR files each of which is configured to respond on different Context Roots.
So one war for version 1, one war for version 2 etc.
This leaves you with code duplication.
So what you are really asking is, "how do I efficiently modularise Java web applications?".
This is a big question, and leads you into "Enterprise Java".
Essentially you need to solve it by abstracting your common code to a different application. Usually this is called 'n-tier' design.
So you'd create an 'integration tier' application which your 'presentation' layer war files speaks to.
The Integration tier contains all the common code so that it isn't repeated.
Your integration tier could be EJB or webservices etc.
Or you could investigate using OSGi.
Related
Just as shown in the picture, one app (Java) referenced two third-party package jars (packageA and packageB), and they referenced packageC-0.1 and packageC-0.2 respectively. It would work well if packageC-0.2 was compatible with packageC-0.1. However sometimes packageA used something that could not be supported in packageC-0.2 and Maven can only use the latest version of a jar. This issue is also known as "Jar Hell".
It would be difficult in practice to rewrite package A or force its developers to update packageC to 0.2.
How do you tackle with these problems? This often happens in large-scale companies.
I have to declare that this problem is mostly occurred in BIG companies due to the fact that big company has a lot of departments and it would be very expensive to let the whole company update one dependency each time certain developers use new features of new version of some dependency jars. And this is not big deal in small companies.
Any response will be highly appreciated.
Let me throw away a brick in order to get a gem first.
Alibaba is one of the largest E-Commerces in the world. And we tackle with these problems by creating an isolation container named Pandora. Its principle is simple: packaging those middle-wares together and load them with different ClassLoaders so that they can work well together even they referenced same packages with different versions. But this need a runtime environment provided by Pandora which is running as a tomcat process. I have to admit that this is a heavy plan. Pandora is developed based on a fact that JVM identifies one class by class-loader plus classname.
If you know someone maybe know the answers, share the link with him/her.
We are a large company and we have this problem a lot. We have large dependency trees that over several developer groups. What we do:
We manage versions by BOMs (lists of Maven dependencyManagement) of "recommended versions" that are published by the maintainers of the jars. This way, we make sure that recent versions of the artifacts are used.
We try to reduce the large dependency trees by separating the functionality that is used inside a developer group from the one that they offer to other groups.
But I admit that we are still trying to find better strategies. Let me also mention that using "microservices" is a strategy against this problem, but in many cases it is not a valid strategy for us (mainly because we could not have global transactions on databases any more).
This is a common problem in the java world.
Your best options are to regularly maintain and update dependencies of both packageA and packageB.
If you have control over those applications - make time to do it. If you don't have control, demand that the vendor or author make regular updates.
If both packageA and packageB are used internally, you can use the following practise: have all internal projects in your company refer to a parent in the maven pom.xml that defines "up to date" versions of commonly used third party libraries.
For example:
<framework.jersey>2.27</framework.jersey>
<framework.spring>4.3.18.RELEASE</framework.spring>
<framework.spring.security>4.2.7.RELEASE</framework.spring.security>
Therefore, if your project "A" uses spring, if they use the latest version of your company's "parent" pom, they should both use 4.3.18.RELEASE.
When a new version of spring is released and desirable, you update your company's parent pom, and force all other projects to use that latest version.
This will solve many of these dependency mismatch issues.
Don't worry, it's common in the java world, you're not alone. Just google "jar hell" and you can understand the issue in the broader context.
By the way mvn dependency:tree is your friend for isolating these dependency problems.
I agree with the answer of #JF Meier ，In Maven multi-module project, the dependency management node is usually defined in the parent POM file when doing unified version management. The content of dependencies node declared by the node class is about the resource version of unified definition. The resources in the directly defined dependencies node need not be introduced into the version phase. The contents of the customs are as follows:
in the parent pom
<dependencyManagement>
<dependencies >
<dependency >
<groupId>com.devzuz.mvnbook.proficio</groupId>
<artifactId>proficio-model</artifactId>
<version>${project.version}</version>
</dependency >
</dependencies >
</dependencyManagement>
in your module ,you do not need to set the version
<dependencies >
<dependency >
<groupId>com.devzuz.mvnbook.proficio</groupId>
<artifactId>proficio-model</artifactId>
</dependency >
</dependencies >
This will avoid the problem of inconsistency .
This question can't be answered in general.
In the past we usually just didn't use dependencies of different versions. If the version was changed, team-/company-wide refactoring was necessary. I doubt it is possible with most build tools.
But to answer your question..
Simple answer: Don't use two versions of one dependency within one compilation unit (usually a module)
But if you really have to do this, you could write a wrapper module that references to the legacy version of the library.
But my personal opinion is that within one module there should not be the need for these constructs because "one module" should be relatively small to be manageable. Otherwise it might be a strong indicator that the project could use some modularization refactoring. However, I know very well that some projects of "large-scale companies" can be a huge mess where no 'good' option is available. I guess you are talking about a situation where packageA is owned by a different team than packageB... and this is generally a very bad design decision due to the lack of separation and inherent dependency problems.
First of all, try to avoid the problem. As mentioned in #Henry's comment, don't use 3rd party libraries for trivial tasks.
However, we all use libraries. And sometimes we end up with the problem you describe, where we need two different versions of the same library. If library 'C' has removed and added some APIs between the two versions, and the removed APIs are needed by 'A', while 'B' needs the new ones, you have an issue.
In my company, we run our Java code inside an OSGi container. Using OSGi, you can modularize your code in "bundles", which are jar files with some special directives in their manifest file. Each bundle jar has its own classloader, so two bundles can use different versions of the same library. In your example, you could split your application code that uses 'packageA' into one bundle, and the code that uses 'packageB' in another. The two bundles can call each others APIs, and it will all work fine as long as your bundles do not use 'packageC' classes in the signature of the methods used by the other bundle (known as API leakage).
To get started with OSGi, you can e.g. take a look at OSGi enRoute.
Let me throw away a brick in order to get a gem first.
Alibaba is one of the largest E-Commerces in the world. And we tackle with these problems by creating an isolation container named Pandora. Its principle is simple: packaging those middle-wares together and load them with different ClassLoaders so that they can work well together even they referenced same packages with different versions. But this need a runtime environment provided by Pandora which is running as a tomcat process. I have to admit that this is a heavy plan.
Pandora is developed based on a fact that JVM identifies one class by class-loader plus classname.
I have a Java-based server, transmitting data from many remote devices to one app via TCP/IP. I need to develop several versions of it. How can I develop and then dwell them without need in coding for 2 projects?I'm asking not only for that project, but for different approaches.
Where the behaviour differs, make the behaviour "data driven" - typically by externalizing the data the drives the behaviour to properties files that are read at runtime/startup.
The goal is to have a single binary whose behaviour varies depending on the properties files found in the runtime environment.
Java supports this pattern through the Properties class, which offers convenient ways of loading properties. In fact, most websites operate in this way, for example the production database user/pass details are never (should never be) in the code. The sysadmins will edit a properties file that is read at start up, and which is protected by the operating system's file permissions.
Other options are to use a database to store the data that drives behaviour.
It can be a very powerful pattern, but it can be abused too, so some discretion is advised.
I think you need to read up on Source Control Management (SCM) and Version Control Systems (VCS).
I would recommend setting up a git or Subversion repository and adding the code initially to trunk and then branching it off to the number of branches (versions you'll be working on).
The idea of different versions is this:
You're developing your code and have it in your SCM's trunk (or otherwise known as a HEAD). At some point you consider the code stable enough for a release. You therefore create a tag (let's call it version 1.0). You cannot (should not) make changes to tags -- they're only there as a marker in time for you. If you have a client who has version 1.0 and reports bugs which you would like to fix, you create a branch based on a copy of your tag. The produced version would (normally) be 1.x (1.1, 1.2, etc). When you're done with your fixes, you tag again and release the new version.
Usually, most of the development happens on your trunk.
When you are ready with certain fixes, or know that certain fixes have already been applied to your trunk, you can merge these changes to other branches, if necessary.
Make any other version based on previous one by reusing code base, configurations and any other asset. In case if several versions should be in place at one time use configuration management practices. Probably you should consider some routing activities and client version checks on server side. This is the place where 'backward compatibility' comes to play.
The main approach is first to find and extract the code that won't change from one version to another. The best is to maximize this part to share the maximum of code base and to ease the maintenance (correcting a bug for one means correcting for all).
Then it depends on what really changes from one version to another. The best is that on the main project you can use some abstract classes or interfaces that you will be able to implement for each specific project.
First off, I'm coming (back) to Java from C#, so apologies if my terminology or philosophy doesn't quite line up.
Here's the background: we've got a growing collection of internal support tools written for the web. They use HTML5/AJAX/other buzzwords for the frontend and Java for the backend. These tools utilize a lightweight in-house framework so they can share an administrative interface for security and other configuration. Each tool has been written by a separate author and I expect that trend to continue, so I'd like to make it easy for future authors to stay "standardized" on the third-party libraries that we've already decided to use for things like DI, unit testing, ORM, etc.
Our package naming currently looks like this:
com.ourcompany.tools.framework
com.ourcompany.tools.apps.app1name
com.ourcompany.tools.apps.app2name
...and so on.
So here's my question: should each of these apps (and the framework) be treated as a separate project for purposes of Maven setup, Eclipse, etc?
We could have lots of apps appear here over time, so it seems like separation would keep dependencies cleaner and let someone jump in on a single tool more easily. On the other hand, (1) maybe "splitting" deeper portions of a package structure over multiple projects is a code smell and (2) keeping them combined would make tool writers more inclined to use third-party libraries already in place for the other tools.
FWIW, my initial instinct is to separate them.
What say you, Java gurus?
I would absolutely separate them. For the purposes of Maven, make sure each app/project has the appropriate dependencies to the framework/apps so you don't have to build everything when you just want to build a single app.
I keep my projects separated out, but use a parent pom for including all of the dependencies and other common properties. Individual tools / projects have a name and a reference to the parent project, and any project-specific dependencies, if any. This works for helping to keep to common libraries and dependencies, since the common ones are already all configured, but allows me to focus on the specific portion of the codebase that I need to work with.
I'd definitely separate these kind of things out into separate projects.
You should use Maven to handle the dependencies / build process automatically (both for your own internal shared libraries and third party dependencies). There won't be any issue having multiple applications reference the same shared libraries - you can even keep multiple versions around if you need to.
Couple of bonuses from this approach:
This forces you to think carefully about your API design for the shared projects which will be a good thing in the long run.
It will probably also give you about the right granularity for source code control - i.e. your developers can check out and work on specific applications or backend modules individually
If there is a section of a project that is likely to be used on more than one project it makes sense to pull that out. It will make it a little cleaner as well if you need to update the code in one of the commonly used projects.
If you keep them together you will have fewer obstacles developing, building and deploying your tools.
We had the opposite situation, having many separate projects. After merging them into one project tree we are much more productive and this is more important to us than whatever conventions happen to be trending.
We currently have an application which is essentially a fully-functional demo for potential clients. All the functionality is there. However, we use generic branding/logos, call our own web services (which would later be swapped out for calls to client web-services), etc.
Here is my question. If we have two different clients, we would prefer as little duplicate code as possible. I understand that this could be done -- from a java perspective -- by simply including a shared JAR. However, we will need to change around resources. Also, one client may not want some functionality that another client does want. On top of this, if we are doing general bug fixes, we will normally want these fixes to be in both versions of the application.
We are using Git for version control and Maven for building the project.
One option we discussed is simply branching the project and maintaining separate versions. However, then we would have to manually merge changes that we want reflected in all versions of the app.
Another option we discussed is somehow swapping out resources, etc. using maven profiles. However, if we need to make any non-superficial changes to the code itself, this could be a problem. We might have to get into factories and different implementations.
Does anyone have recommendations on the best way to handle this?
We use a library project with git submodules to handle all of our similar projects. The master project is pretty hefty but we use a configuration file to determine what features should be in the finished product.
We have following problem. Developers frequently need to make small changes to our web applications. When I say small, I mean things like correcting the spelling on a web page or similar. Generating and redeploying war archives can be slow and costly in such scenarios.
How could we automate and install changes incrementally? For example, generate new exploded war, compare files with exploded war in production and then replace in production only the files affected by change: .jsp .html .class etc.
This need not be hot deployment, it’s ok to restart the server. What I wish to avoid is having to copy and deploy wars that can be 80Mb in size. Sometimes connections are slow and making such minuscule change to web application as simple spelling correction can take hours.
We use Maven to automate our build process. The key issue is to automate the whole process, so that I can be sure that app v2.2.3 in my Subversion is exactly what I have in production after incremental deployment.
We used to do this sort of thing all of the time. We worked in a bank, and there were sometimes changes to legal phrases or terms and conditions that needed to be changed today (or more usually yesterday).
We did two things to help us deploy quickly. We had a good change control and build process. We could change and deploy any version we liked. We also had a good test suite, with which we could test changes easily.
The second was more controversial. All of our html was deployed as separate files on the server. There was no WAR. Therefore, when the circumstances came up that we needed to change something textual quickly, we could do it. If java needed changing, we always did a FULL build and deploy.
This is not something I'd recommend, but it was good for our situation.
The point of a WAR is so that everything gets deployed at the same time. If you're using a WAR, that means you want it to be deployed all at once.
One suggestion is not to do such corrections so often (once a week?). Then you don't have so much pain.
Hard to say. You can ofcourse replace single class files in an exploded webapp, but this is generally a bad idea and you don't see many people doing this.
The reason is that when you make small changes it becomes harder and harder to detect differences between production and development. The chances of you sending a wrong classfile and breaking the production server increases over time.
When you say text changes, isn't it an idea to keep the text resources seperate from the war file? That way, not only developers but maybe even the customer can easily add/change translations.
To the customer it's important, but technically it's silly to do a 80MB deploy over a slow line to fix a small typo.
You can also try to look at your build/delivery cycle and increase testing efforts to prevent these small changes.
Hope this helps.
You can have the master war deployed somewhere the running servers can access it, and instead of deploying war files to the individual servers you can use rsync and perl to determine if there are changes to any files in the master war, distribute them to the servers and execute restarts.
diff and patch:
http://stephenjungels.com/jungels.net/articles/diff-patch-ten-minutes.html
At the moment I installed SVN on the remote server so in case of a simple udate you can just update single file. Transfering the big WAR file would be quite impractical.
You can automate to a single click deployment using putty / plink [if you are using windows] by creating a simple script on the local machine an another one in the remote machine.
At the moment I have a DEVELOPMENT SVN and a LIVE SVN. The ANT build is merging the DEV to LIVE and the commit again back to the LIVE repository. At that stage the remote server can do a SVN UP and you will get automatically the file requested.
You can furter improve the update script to restart the server in case some classes are changed and do not restart in case of updating scripts/JSP.
In this way you will have also the option to rollback to a previous version to be sure that you have a working web app all the times.
To improve the process of merging SVN this tool is quite useful. : http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py
The usual answer is to use a Continuous Integration sstem which watches your subversion and build the artifacts and deploy them - you just want your web application to be abel to work even after being redeployed. Question is if that is fast enough for you?
I don't think there's a straightforward answer to this one. T
The key here is modularisation - a problem which I don't think is solved very well with Java applications at present. You may want to look at OSGi or dynamic modules lathough I'm not sure how effective they are in terms of this problem.
I've seen solutions where people drop classes into application server/servlet container, I don't agree with it, but it does appear to work... I'm sure there are horror stories though!
Maven certainly makes things easier by splitting applications into modules, but if you do this and deploy modules independently you need to make sure that the various versions play nice together in a test environment to begin with...
An alternative is to partition your application in terms of functionality and host separate functions on various servers, e.g:
Customer Accounts - Server A
Search - Server B
Online Booking - Server C
Payment Services - Server D
The partitioning makes it easier to deploy applications, but again you have to make sure that your modules play nicely together first. Hope that helps.
I have had a similar situation before. It really is a separation of concerns issue, and it's not too straight forward. What you need to do is separate the text from the template/HTML page.
We solved this by placing our text in a database table, and using the table as a message resource - the same way people use myMessages.properties for internationalization (i8n). This gives you two advantages, you can i8n the text, and make changes in prod instantly and easily without a code deployment. We also cached the table to ensure performance didn't suffer much at all.
Not a solution for all, but it did work really well for us.