Grouper Developers Forum

[Chris Hyzer <>]

I agree that people might need ant anyways, and if so, why not make them 
compile stuff.  Are these steps below any easier or more reliable than what 
people do now?  And yes, in jars we distribute, the source should be in the 
jar always.

e.g. for WS
1. download a zip file
2. unzip and an unzipped warfile is there
3. either change the config files, or copy your existing config files to the 
WEB-INF classes dir
4. zip it up in a warfile (or not depending on how you deploy), and deploy to 
your app server
5. when grouper starts, it fails since the DB is not up to date, logs where 
the sql script is, exits.  Run the sql, start app again

I think the advantages are the steps above don't have as much 
uncertainty/complexity as compiling java, having right version of ant, etc.  
But I guess you do have to know what you are doing, if you zip it up from the 
wrong parent dir things wont work, and ant will do things right.  
Documentation could help here.

Im leaning toward binary distributions unless I am missing something...  
though I agree that it is not significantly better...

Maybe for upgrades it would be easier if the distributions didn't have the 
config files there (only the example configs), and you could copy the 
directory structure over an existing deployment, and do the change log steps 
and you are done (your old config files would still be there)

If you have a customized UI, and jsp's to add and stuff, ant is good with 
that.

Regards,
Chris


> -----Original Message-----
> From: GW Brown, Information Systems and Computing
> [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:06 AM
> To: Tom Barton; Grouper Dev
> Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] binaries in future releases?
>
> Are you suggesting additional downloads to the ones we currently
> produce?
> Would there be no Java source in the binary distribution (other than in
> JAR
> files for convenient debugging)?
>
> I'm not sure we really save any steps as targets such as db-init would
> compile source any way. Don't we pretty much change config files and
> run
> ant targets as it is?
>
> For WS and UI, given the amount of configuration / customisation I'm
> not
> sure how much benefit there is to having a binary (WAR?) version.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> --On 15 August 2008 07:52 -0500 Tom Barton 
> <>
> wrote:
>
> > In keeping with reducing, if just a little, the number of steps it
> takes
> > to get grouper up and running, I think it would be good to include
> > binaries of grouper-api (inclusive of binary exts or utils), grouper-
> ws,
> > and grouper-ui in future releases. With ldappc and subject API also
> > available in binary, a deployer can turn immediately to
> configuration.
> > Are each of these well-defined targets, amenable to a "just add
> config
> > and serve" deployment recipe? What issues would we need to resolve to
> be
> > in position to do so?
> >
> > Tom
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> GW Brown, Information Systems and Computing
>