| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| IIB Indep Resource - Integration Project cannot be mavenized |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| leopucci |
 Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:35 am Post subject: IIB Indep Resource - Integration Project cannot be mavenized |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Nov 2017
Posts: 28
|
Hello fellows,
Does anyone here have user the iib-maven plugin?
The doc seems to be old, but i think that the plugin is in this github repo:
https://github.com/bretthshelley/Maven-IIB9-Plug-In
and this is the latest doc available:
http://innovations.syntegrity.com.au/iib-maven-plugin/index.html
My problem with the maven is that it only detects applications and shared libraries, but it cannot detect indepedent resources.
The problem for using application is that i have to deploy the whole app instead of only one updated flow.
So that´s why i am using as an independent resource - Integration Project. So i could generate one bar per flow, version each one and deploy only the needed ones.
Does anyone have reached the same problem?
Could some kind soul point me to an aceptable pattern to generate bars instead of only one application bar?
Thanks in advance
Pucci |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| souciance |
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Posts: 169
|
I would probably recommend you to rethink this approach since in all likelyhood it will get more and more difficult to do this with newer IIB/ACE versions. At some point you will have to have Applications or Libraries.
If you want to do it you can use one Application per message flow and generate a bar file for that Application. Wouldn't that work for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| leopucci |
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Nov 2017
Posts: 28
|
| souciance wrote: |
I would probably recommend you to rethink this approach since in all likelyhood it will get more and more difficult to do this with newer IIB/ACE versions. At some point you will have to have Applications or Libraries.
If you want to do it you can use one Application per message flow and generate a bar file for that Application. Wouldn't that work for you? |
Hello souciance,
Thanks for your advise.
What do you mean by getting more difficult on newer versions?
About the split on several applications, are there any overheads on this approach that you know?
Today we use a java lib and a dfdl lib, for each flow, packaged on each bar.
Seems that the only thing that will change will be the development approach and the deploy machine behaviour, the configuration, logs, etc...
i will give it a try, if you know any other foreseen impact that you could share, would be great.
Thanks
Pucci |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Taking a step back, why is the application a problem? Accepting your assertion that you need to build & deploy the entire application for a single flow change, why is that an issue? Does your Maven install charge by CPU usage? This is why we have (or at least why I have) automated tools like Maven; so I can change something, push a button and leave it to chug away while I do something more important (probably involving coffee).
Without wishing to put words in my associate's mouth, I too think using independent resources will become less palatable as we move through the versions. I'm not sure I agree with "difficult", but all the new development (like shared resources) is going into applications & libraries. So you'll loose access to useful new features if you continue to use independent flows like you're still on v6.
My $0.0.2, other opinions equally valid, I am not now nor have I ever been part of the IIB development team and any speculation on the future direction of the product are mine & mine alone and should not be considered to be supported, endorsed or otherwise favored by IBM.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| souciance |
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Posts: 169
|
| leopucci wrote: |
| souciance wrote: |
I would probably recommend you to rethink this approach since in all likelyhood it will get more and more difficult to do this with newer IIB/ACE versions. At some point you will have to have Applications or Libraries.
If you want to do it you can use one Application per message flow and generate a bar file for that Application. Wouldn't that work for you? |
Hello souciance,
Thanks for your advise.
What do you mean by getting more difficult on newer versions?
About the split on several applications, are there any overheads on this approach that you know?
Today we use a java lib and a dfdl lib, for each flow, packaged on each bar.
Seems that the only thing that will change will be the development approach and the deploy machine behaviour, the configuration, logs, etc...
i will give it a try, if you know any other foreseen impact that you could share, would be great.
Thanks
Pucci |
Well you would miss out on important functionality, that's for sure. Also, I don't think you can use some of command line commands without referring to applications.
The main downside to 1 app per 1 msg flow is that you will soon have lots of apps to maintain and deploy. It could get overcrowded. Apps are supposed act as a logical container for a project that could contain several flows and other artefacts.
By the way, if you are a java shop, why are you using IIB in the first place? Wouldn't some other product or framework suit you better that works seamlessly with maven such as Spring Boot or Camel? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
