I have very similar apps (90% shared code). I currently have different templates for each app and direct users to different entrypoints depending on the url.
The problem is that users of app A also get all the templates of APP B served in the .js bundle. This is not a problem if I have 3 apps with 90% common code and then 10% overload per app for the individual templates. However, it will become an issue in the long run.
I would normally just run individual meteor instances for each app to keep the bundle small, but this makes it harder to sync the common 90% codebase.
Any best practice for my situation?
While I would suggest using the package system as well, the OP has stated he doesn't want to go that route. One possible alternative would be using Git's submodule system for the common code:
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-submodule
Basically, you have a git repo that has all the common code and acts as a dependent module of your top-level repos with the differing code.
I suggest you to create package for your shared code
Good source to create package:
https://themeteorchef.com/recipes/writing-a-package/
https://medium.com/#davidjwoody/how-to-write-a-package-for-meteor-js-e5534c6bd3c2#.67eeiu59s
After you publish your shared code as package, you can install them to any of your app. Then, you can use your shared code not only on your App A or B, but as much app as you want.
Related
I would like to create a Meteor project which will be over the web for PC and mobile platforms.
The HTML files will be different for each project however the JavaScript logic should be the same.
Is it possible to create 2 Meteor projects (one for web and other for mobile) with shared JS files?
Maybe using another project?
Sharing and reusing code is the very first reason for the existence of Meteor packages.
To create one simply meteor create --package me:mypackage (assuming me is your Meteor developer account username).
You can add your logic in the package. You can do anything you would normally do in your application development (templates, publications/subscriptions, collections, CSS, ...).
You can then simply publish this package to Atmosphere and reuse it in other projects.
meteor publish --create me:mypackage
There is a lot to know about packages. See more about publishing, testing packages with Jasmine.
I am not a CQ guy. I have to use CQ5 for one of my project. I have a CAT and a production environment. I have following doubts-
I want to use author instance of my CAT only. Once I publish the content in CAT it should publish in Production also. Is it possible ?
Once I update the build of AdobeCQ in my production say new build, code changes etc- will my content be lost ?
I read somewhere about Content package in cq5. Can I separate content changes and code changes in one CQ5 environment ?
Thanks in advance.
To answer question 1...
This is not a recommended setup, but a common misconception for someone unfamiliar with AEM/CQ5. The "author" and "publish" instances should be part of the same environment. For example you should have a production author, probably behind your firewall, and production publish to serve pages to the public.
Your CAT environment should have the same thing. You want your testing environment to match as closely as possible to your production environment, including web server and dispatcher setup, to ensure quality.
Consider this. You can use one production publish instance, but it's a single point of failure. It's a general best practice to load balance across at least two. Two is sufficient for most websites. If you do this, you'd want to mimic the architecture in CAT.
To answer question 2...
If your code is written, built, and deployed correctly, it should not delete your content. Just make sure you are never deploying anything to /content (to avoid deleting content) and to /libs and most of /etc to avoid overriding platform functionality. AEM/CQ5 is a very open product, so you can do very bad things. But, if you know what not to do you are safe.
Code deployments should typically be done as part of a CRX Content Package, which brings me to...
To answer question 3...
The way we build and deploy code is to have Maven compile the Java, package everything up in a CRX Package, then deploy to the instance using the Package Manager REST API. Adobe provides a Maven Archetype that will facilitate this.
A CRX Package is a file system representation of your content repository, wrapped in what is effectively an annotated Zip file. Your compiled Java code is included in that file system representation, in a folder (to become node) named "config". That compiled Java is an OSGi bundle, which is an annotated JAR. When CRX Package Manager deploys all those nodes to the system, OSGi accepts the bundle, assuming it's valid. This is why you can do "hot" deployments of live, production AEM/CQ5 instances, with very little risk.
So...
This is a very high level answer to some very big topics. I encourage you to do a lot more research before you set this up. There are many good blog posts and documentation pages out there to help you get this set up according to best practice. Good luck!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
What is a best practices to write large software projects in OCaml?
How do you structure your projects?
What features of OCaml should and should not be used to simplify code management? Exceptions? First-class modules? GADTs? Object types?
Build system? Testing framework? Library stack?
I found great recommendations for haskell and I think it would be good to have something similar for OCaml.
I am going to answer for a medium-sized project in the conditions that I am familiar with, that is between 100K and 1M lines of source code and up to 10 developers. This is what we are using now, for a project started two months ago in August 2013.
Build system and code organization:
one source-able shell script defines PATH and other variables for our project
one .ocamlinit file at the root of our project loads a bunch of libraries when starting a toplevel session
omake, which is fast (with -j option for parallel builds); but we avoid making crazy custom omake plugins
one root Makefile contains all the essential targets (setup, build, test, clean, and more)
one level of subdirectories, not two
most subdirectories build into an OCaml library
some subdirectories contain other things (setup, scripts, etc.)
OCAMLPATH contains the root of the project; each library subdirectory produces a META file, making all OCaml parts of the projects accessible from the toplevel using #require.
only one OCaml executable is built for the whole project (saves a lot of linking time; still not sure why)
libraries are installed via a setup script using opam
local opam packages are made for software that it not in the official opam repository
we use an opam switch which is an alias named after our project, avoiding conflicts with other projects on the same machine
Source-code editing:
emacs with opam packages ocp-indent and ocp-index
Source control and management:
we use git and github
all new code is peer-reviewed via github pull requests
tarballs for non-opam non-github libraries are stored in a separate git repository (that can be blown away if history gets too big)
bleeding-edge libraries existing on github are forked into our github account and installed via our own local opam package
Use of OCaml:
OCaml will not compensate for bad programming practices; teaching good taste is beyond the scope of this answer. http://ocaml.org/learn/tutorials/guidelines.html is a good starting point.
OCaml 4.01.0 makes it much easier than before to reuse record field labels and variant constructors (i.e. type t1 = {x:int} type t2 = {x:int;y:int} let t1_of_t2 ({x}:t2) : t1 = {x} now works)
we try to not use camlp4 syntax extensions in our own code
we do not use classes and objects unless mandated by some external library
in theory since OCaml 4.01.0 we should prefer classic variants over polymorphic variants
we use exceptions to indicate errors and let them go through happily until our main server loop catches them and interprets them as "internal error" (default), "bad request", or something else
exceptions such as Exit or Not_found can be used locally when it makes sense, but in module interfaces we prefer to use options.
Libraries, protocols, frameworks:
we use Batteries for all commodity functions that are missing from OCaml's standard library; for the rest we have a "util" library
we use Lwt for asynchronous programming, without the syntax extensions, and the bind operator (>>=) is the only operator that we use (if you have to know, we do reluctantly use camlp4 preprocessing for better exception tracking on bind points).
we use HTTP and JSON to communicate with 3rd-party software and we expect every modern service to provide such APIs
for serving HTTP, we run our own SCGI server (ocaml-scgi) behind nginx
as an HTTP client we use Cohttp
for JSON serialization we use atdgen
"Cloud" services:
we use quite a lot of them as they are usually cheap, easy to interact with, and solve scalability and maintenance problems for us.
Testing:
we have one make/omake target for fast tests and one for slow tests
fast tests are unit tests; each module may provide a "test" function; a test.ml file runs the list of tests
slow tests are those that involve running multiple services; these are crafted specifically for our project, but they cover as much as possible as a production service. Everything runs locally either on Linux or MacOS, except for cloud services for which we find ways to not interfere with production.
Setting this all up is quite a bit of work, especially for someone not familiar with OCaml. There is no framework taking care of all that yet, but at least you get the choice of the tools.
OASIS
To add to Pavel answer:
Disclaimer: I am the author of OASIS.
OASIS also has oasis2opam that can help to create OPAM package quickly and oasis2debian to create Debian packages. This is extremly useful if you want to create a 'release' target that automate most of the tasks to upload a package.
OASIS is also shipped with a script called oasis-dist.ml that creates automatically tarball for upload.
Look all this in https://github.com/ocaml.org.
Testing
I use OUnit to do all my tests. This is simple and pretty efficient if you are used to xUnit testing.
Source control/management
Disclaimer: I am the owner/maintainer of forge.ocamlcore.org (aka forge.o.o)
If you want to use git, I recommend to use github. This is really efficient for review.
If you use darcs or subversion, you can create an account on forge.o.o.
In both case having a public mailing list where you send all commit notification is a must have, so that everyone can see them and review them. You can use either Google groups or a mailing list on forge.o.o.
I recommend to have a nice web (github or forge.o.o) page with OCamldoc documentation build everytime you commit. If you have a huge code base this will help you to use the OCamldoc generated documentation right from the beginning (and fix it quickly).
I recommend to create tarballs when you reach a stable stage. Don't just rely on checking out the latest git/svn version. This tip has saved me hours of work in the past. As said by Martin, store all your tarballs in a central place (a git repository is a good idea for that).
This one probably doesn't answer your question completely, but here is my experience regarding build environment:
I really appreciate OASIS. It has a nice set of features, helping not only to build the project, but also to write documentation and support test environment.
Build system
OASIS generates setup.ml file from the specification (_oasis file), which works basically as a building script. It accepts -configure, -build, -test, -distclean flags. I quite used to them while working with different GNU and other projects that usually use Makefiles and I find it convenient that it is possible to use all of them automatically here.
Makefiles. Instead of generating setup.ml, it is also possible to generate Makefile with all options described above available.
Structure
Usually my project that is built by OASIS has at least three directories: src, _build, scripts and tests.
In the former directory all source files are stored in one directory: source (.ml) and interface (.mli) files are stored together. May be if the project is too large, it is worth introducing more subdirectories.
The _build directory is under the influence of OASIS build system. It stores both source and object files there and I like that build files are not interfered with source files, so I can easily delete it in case something goes wrong.
I store multiple shell scripts in the scripts directory. Some of them are for test execution and interface file generation.
All input and output files for tests I store in a separate directory.
Interfaces/Documentation
The use of interface files (.mli) has both advantages and drawbacks for me. It really helps to find type errors, but if you have them, you have to edit them as well when making changes or improvements in your code. Sometimes forgetting this causes nasty errors.
But the main reason why I like interface files is documentation. I use ocamldoc to generate (OASIS supports this feature with -doc flag) html pages with documentation automatically. In my opinion it is enough to write comments describing each function in the interface and not to insert comments in the middle of code. In OCaml functions are usually short and concise and if there is a necessity to insert extra comments there, may be it is better to split the function.
Also be aware of -i flag for ocamlc. The compiler can automatically generate interface file for a module.
Tests
I didn't find a reasonable solution for supporting tests (I would like to have some ocamltest application), that's why I am using my own scripts for executing and verifying use cases. Fortunately, OASIS supports executing custom commands when setup.ml is run with -test flag.
I don't use OASIS for a long time and if anyone knows any other cool features, I would like also to know about them.
Also, it you are not aware of OPAM, it is definitely worth looking at. Without it installing and managing new packages is a nightmare.
We're in the process of streamlining/automating build, integration and unit testing as well as deployment.
Our software is developed in Visual Studio where we have use both C# and VB.NET in our projects. A single project can be contained within multiple solutions (i.e. Utils project is used in both ProductA and ProductB solutions)
For historical reasons our code repository isn't as well structured as one could have hoped for.
E.g. Utils project might be located under ProductA solution (because that's were it was first used) but it was later deemed useful for productB development and merely just included into the solution of productB (but still located in a subdirectory of productA).
I would like to use continous integration testing and have setup a CC.NET build server where I intend to use NAnt for creating the actual builds.
Question 1: How should I structure my builds on the buildserver? Should I instruct CC.NET to retrieve all the projects for productB into a single library e.g. a file structure similar to
-ProductB
--Utils
--BetterUtils
--Data
or should I opt for a filestructure similar to this
-ProductA
--Utils
-ProductB
--BetterUtils
--Data
and then just have the NAnt build scripts handle the references? Our references in VS doesn't match the actual location in the code repository so it's not possible today to just check-out productB solution and build it straight away (unfortunately). I hope this question makes sense?
Question 2: Is it better to check out all the source code located in different projects into a single file folder (whilst retaining some kind of structure) and then build every thing at once or have multiple projects in CC.NET and then let the CC.NET server handle dependencies?
Example:
Should I have a seperate project in CC.NET for monitoring the automated build/test of Utils project when it's never released on it's own? Or should I just build/test it whilst building it as part of ProductB?
I hope the above makes sense and that you can provide me with some arguments for using either option. We're nowhere near an ideal source code repository structure and I would prefer if I can resolve the lack of repository structure on the build server instead of having to clean up the structure of our repository.
Switching away from VSS is (unfortunately) not an option.
Right now our build consists of either deploying via VS clickonce or pressing F5 so just getting the build automated would be a huge step up for us.
Thanks
To answer your first question, I would recommend a separate top-level folder for each build project. The problem with having a single tree matching your source repository is that when your build server is trying to run multiple builds at once, one or more will likely fail due to files in use by other processes. Also, you may run into cases where a build script is pulling an older version of the code. In that instance you don't want a different project to accidentally use the incorrect source version.
If your solutions already reference projects from relative paths, you may end up with a structure like this:
-CCNetBuilds
--ProductASource
---Utils
---...
--ProductBSource
---ProductA
----Utils
---ProductB
----BetterUtils
----Data
In this case, the build for Product B contains part of the Product A source, at the same relative path as your solution already expects. This takes a bit more time to set up in CC.Net, but makes it easier to maintain if the developers have their code set up this way on their machines. The same solution files used in development are used by the build server.
To answer your second question, I prefer Utilities being its own build. If I have unit tests on my Utilities assembly, I would not want them to run for every single product that uses the Utilities. Also, if you have a separate build for Utilities, you can set a dependency in CC.Net so that Product A and B will not attempt to build if the Utilities build is broken. This provides a bit faster feedback that something is wrong.
I am making a very large web app (currently at 70 projects and 150k loc but with a lot more to do).
I use FinalBuilder to run build scripts. However, what are the best practises for structuring such a large project? What about build dependencies? What effect does the structure of my projects have on the performance on the code (if any)?
I've seen some previous threads about this but I can't find those. I've seen threads about solutions exceeding 600 projects in the solution, for the sake of clear answers, lets imagine this system will grow to that size (I would like to know how to organise a project bigger than what mine ends up to be, as it would mean I can organise a smaller solution).
If it matters, the system is mostly in .NET 3.5 (C#, LINQ, SQL Server etc) but will use Python/Erlang too.
I have only 40 projects (but several millions of loc), and the main best practices we have is:
identify dependencies between projects
establish a global list of labels used by all projects wishing to participate to the next release
make sure that every project willing to publish a label of its own into this global list has made that label from a configuration (list of labels) coming from the global one
register the "officials builds" (the one potentially to be deployed into production) into a repository.
That way:
developers works and compile their code directly against the deliveries of the other projects they depends on (as opposed to download the sources of the other projects and rebuild all in local).
They only have the right deliveries because they know about their dependencies (both immediate and transitive)
testers can deploy quickly a set of deliveries (from the global list of labels) to perform various tests (non-regression, stress-tests, ...)
release management can deploy those deliveries (after having a final global build) onto pre-production and production platforms
The idea is to:
not rebuild the delivery at every steps
build it only at the development stage (through a common unified building script)
build it again before release (for pre-production and production platform)
compile and/or test only against those deliveries (and not against sources downloaded and re-compiled for the occasion: when you have more than a few projects, it is just not practical)
Main best-practice:
If your own project works with the deliveries of the other projects (and not with your local re-build of those other projects), it have good chances to work in the next steps of the software production life-cycle (test, pre-prod, production)
Have you considered using NMaven and making each of the 70 projects a module? That would allow you to control the building, packaging, versioning, and release of individual modules and the parent project as a whole. It would also help you resolve the depedencies between the different modules, external libraries, and even versions and different lifecycle scopes (for example, you only need NUnit during the testing lifecycle, but don't need to package it in the build).
It might help to explain in greater detail what these projects look like and how they depend on each other.
A bit open as a question. Let's start with a basic structure I suggest as a starting point to my customers, inside a branch I have
Build Scripts
Build Dependencies - things to install on a build machine
Libraries - LIB, DLL, ... directly referenced from projects
Documentation Sources - help sources
Sources
Deploy Scripts
then Sources is organized in
Admin - admin console and scripts
Database - schemas, scripts, initial data
Common
Web
NTServices
Services - REST/SOAP services
BizTalk - you name things specific to a product