[chef] Re: Re: Application Cookbook

[Seth Chisamore < >]

Edmund,
This is a know issue. The plan is to refactor the application cookbook's 
recipes into a series of LWRPs which will allow multiple applications (of the 
same type) to be deployed on the same server. This will also allow the deploy 
(and server daemon config) logic to be leveraged from outside of the 
application cookbook.

Seth

-- 
Opscode, Inc.
Seth Chisamore, Senior Technical Evangelist
IRC, Skype, Twitter, Github: schisamo

On Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Haselwanter Edmund wrote:

> On 21.04.2011, at 10:26, Haselwanter Edmund wrote:
> 
> > Hi *,
> > 
> > I want to leverage the application cookbook for installing multiple 
> > applications of the same type.
> > So I thought I re-use e.g. the application::java_webapp recipe. But this 
> > obviously (or *not* so obviously) 
> > does not work the way I thought it should.
> > 
> > Problem is:
> > 
> > search(:apps) do |app|
> >  (app["server_roles"] & node.run_list.roles).each do |app_role|
> > 
> >  app["type"][app_role].each do |thing|
> >  node.run_state[:current_app] = app
> >  include_recipe "application::#{thing}"
> >  end
> >  end
> > end
> 
> search(:apps) do |app|
>  (app["server_roles"] & node.roles).each do |app_role|
> 
>  app["type"][app_role].each do |thing|
>  node.run_state[:current_app] = app
>  include_recipe "application::#{thing}"
>  end
>  app["type"]["#{app_role}_definitions"].each do |thing|
>  node.run_state[:current_app] = app
>  eval %Q{#{thing} "#{app['id']}-#{thing}"}
>  end
> 
>  end
> end
> 
> > Does the loop correctly, BUT include_recipe will only work for the first 
> > application of a type (which is by design)
> > 
> > [Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:15:22 -0700] DEBUG: I am not loading 
> > application::java_webapp, because I have already seen it.
> > [Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:15:22 -0700] DEBUG: I am not loading 
> > application::java_webapp, because I have already seen it.
> > [Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:15:22 -0700] DEBUG: I am not loading 
> > application::java_webapp, because I have already seen it.
> > 
> > So what to do instead? 
> > 
> > 1) Use a definition for DRY? But that is depricated, but somehow would 
> > feel correct? 
> 
> Hm. Where did I get that definitions are deprecated? Anyway. Putting the 
> stuff of reusable parts of the application cookbooks into
> "resource groupings" aka definitions does work. 
> 
> > 2) Use LWRP just to reuse the code from java_webapp. 
> > 3) Patch chef itself to allow a "force_include"
> > 4) just copy the code to distinct recipes. But that's not DRY
> > 
> > any thoughts?
> > 
> > cu edi
> > --
> > DI Edmund Haselwanter, 
> > 
 ,
> >  http://edmund.haselwanter.com/
> > http://www.iteh.at ;| http://facebook.com/iTeh.solutions ;| 
> > http://at.linkedin.com/in/haselwanteredmund ;
> 
> --
> DI Edmund Haselwanter, 
> 
 ,
>  http://edmund.haselwanter.com/
> http://www.iteh.at ;| http://facebook.com/iTeh.solutions ;| 
> http://at.linkedin.com/in/haselwanteredmund ;
>