10 Jul
2007
10 Jul
'07
5:23 p.m.
On 7/10/07, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi,
With the 1.1M3 release we have currently only released a hsql version
of the platform WAR. That war only includes the HSQL JAR but not the
driver JARS for other DBs.
In our current build we can generate the platform WAR for other DBs
using for ex: mvn install -Pmysql. That includes the driver JAR for
that DB.
Before we were bundling all driver JARs into our WAR so our users may
be a bit confused and we need to decide on the strategy we want to
have. I can see 3 possible strategies:
1) 1 WAR per database
- We could start by releasing only 2 WARs: one for HSQL and one for
MySQL. I don't think we need more and releasing more is going to be a
pain as each WAR weights 40MB.
+ easiest to deploy as configuration is always close
- more difficult to change from one db to another once one has
figured things out
2) 1 WAR with everything
- Cons: having all these DB drivers makes our WAR fatter
- Possible solution: we only release the HSQL and MySQL drivers
+ easiest to change from one db to another
+ total WAR size is smaller than multiple WARs
- a little larger WAR than is needed
3) 1 empty WAR
I feel 3) might actually be the best solution for the following reasons:
- if the user is non technical he'll install the standalone version
- if the user is technical it means he shouldn't have any problem
following install instructions that tell him to download such driver
at such location and put it in WEB-INF/lib
- we only release one common WAR and our XWiki Platform is
environment independent (which is a new property to have I think)
- releasing one WAR makes our release process simpler (only 40MB to
release once)
+ easiest to test before release
- more difficult to upgrade deployments (not just configuration changes)
+ requires really good documentation
I do not know how many users use the standalone release vs. mysql vs.
postgresql vs..., but this should probably be a factor in which
strategy is used (make it easy to deploy for 80% of users).
I think #2 has my vote, as this seems to be the more standard practice
with other products (just requires configuration changes unless you
want to do something that is non-standard).
David
--