[chef] Re: Re: Re: Application Cookbook

[Haselwanter Edmund < >]

Hi Seth

On 21.04.2011, at 13:27, Seth Chisamore wrote:

> 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.

Do you have a draft of this work in progress?

> This will also allow the deploy (and server daemon config) logic to be 
> leveraged from outside of the application cookbook.

I have refactored my heavy tomcat6 manager provider into a TomcatContext LWRP 
which leverages the tomcat (opscode) cookbook and tomcat manager application. 
It "works" but might need some polish. and would it would need access to the 
node for defaults (http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-1946 which I don't 
think is in the current release ?) 

cu edi

> 
> 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 ;
>> 
> 

--
DI Edmund Haselwanter, 

 ,
 http://edmund.haselwanter.com/
http://www.iteh.at ;| http://facebook.com/iTeh.solutions ;| 
http://at.linkedin.com/in/haselwanteredmund ;