[Engine-devel] ovirt-engine deployment method

[Livnat Peer]

On 18/04/12 13:42, Juan Hernandez wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 12:18 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>> On 18/04/12 12:42, Juan Hernandez wrote:
>>> On 04/18/2012 11:17 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>>>> On 17/04/12 16:20, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
>>>>> As decided earlier, oVirt next release (3.1) is targeted for Fedora 17.
>>>>> Since the engine uses JBoss, we have two deployment options:
>>>>> 1. Continue working with ovirt-engine-jbossas package
>>>>>    PROS: Single rpm. known upgrade method.
>>>>>    CONS: Maintaining un-natural zip based rpm. No official support. Can't be pushed into Fedora.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Move to JBoss F17 official packages:
>>>>>    PROS: Fully supported F17 rpms (including bug fixes, security fixes, etc). "The right thing to do".
>>>>>    CONS: Upgrade from first release (relaying on old jboss) will be almost impossible, Some open issues (will it work just as as normal service? or will we need to code a new one?), Might cause a delay to Feature Freeze.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought? Comments?
>>>>
>>>> I think it is too soon to move to the Jboss packaged for Fedora17.
>>>> It was just packaged and I am not aware of any developer actually
>>>> working with oVirt on the Jboss packaged for Fedora (except for one).
>>>> I expect to at least have the developers working with this Jboss for a
>>>> while before releasing on it.
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone provide info on how different is Jboss for Fedora than the
>>>> current upstream Jboss we use?
>>>
>>> The main difference is that the version being packaged for Fedora 17
>>> contains a subset of the modules: those needed for the web profile
>>> except Hibernate. In addition the main configuration file is also
>>> different: standalone-web.xml instead of standalone.xml. Additional
>>> modules will be added as needed. Eventually all the modules available
>>> upstream will be available in the Fedora packaging, but that will take time.
>>>
>>> With the currently available packages ovirt-engine 3.0 can run correctly
>>> (only backend and restapi, not the frontend). It needs changes, but it
>>> can run, and most of those changes are not really related to the
>>> differences in jboss-as, but to the differences in other packages like
>>> quartz, resteasy, jackson, spring, etc. I believe that the same applies
>>> to 3.1.
>>
>> Maybe for 3.1 we should change upstream to use the same Jar versions as
>> we use in the Fedora deployment. That would take us one step closer to a
>> parity version.
> 
> That would be great! There are some changes that could help with that:
> 
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3250 - Update to Quartz 2.1
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3251 - Update to Jackson 1.9.2
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/1390 - Remove Spring from RESTAPI
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3002 - Update to Spring 3
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/2347 - Add methods missing in PGHack
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/2354 - Don't require activation
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3249 - Remove dependency on JNA
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/3086 - Replace pubkey2ssh with ssh-keygen
> 
> Some of them still need work from the author ;-)

nice :), added some comments myself.

> 
>>> In order for a ovirt developer to use the Fedora packaging it will need
>>> a lot of additional modules and tools, specially for the frontend, that
>>> are not currently available in Fedora 17. If we wait for that then we
>>> should re-target for Fedora 18.
>>
>> Is that mean that our next release, if we use Jboss packaged in Fedora,
>> will not include UI?
> 
> No, I didn't explain it correctly, sorry. It means the the "official"
> ovirt-engine package included in Fedora 17 can't contain the UI (because
> GWT is not in Fedora 17 yet). But the "unofficial" ovirt-engine package
> can include it, and the official jboss-as package should be enough to
> run the it.
> 

Thanks for clarifying it.

>>> My opinion is that we should use the Fedora 17 packages for deployment,
>>> independently of what we use for development. It is challenging, but I
>>> believe is "the right thing to do".
>>
>> Juan, thank you for the detailed answer.
>>
>> I suggest that for the upcoming release we'll do both, have 2 release
>> flavors, one RPM's like we released for 3.0 (with Jboss included) and
>> the other one tailored for Fedora.
> 
> My suggestion is that even if we decide to have two flavors of the
> ovirt-engine packages (the official one without the UI and the
> unofficial one with the UI) both should use the official jboss-as package.

I am interested in 2 flavors as in one using the 'fedora' Jboss and a
second one using the upstream Jboss AS we use today. The main reason for
that is that we need time for the developers to worked with the Jboss
packaged in Fedora and see it does not have major issues.


Livnat