You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@qpid.apache.org by Ernest Allen <ea...@redhat.com> on 2016/08/17 17:11:32 UTC
Using symlinks in the qpid dispatch router console
Summary: Are there any problems associated with checking in symlinks?
Here is the situation:
qpid-dispatch/
console/
stand-alone/
hawtio/
Basically the stand-alone and hawtio versions of the qpid dispatch router use several of the same (html, js, css) files.
I see some possibile scenarios:
1) Store duplicate versions of the files in the stand-alone/ and hawtio/ directories.
Not ideal from a development/maintenance perspective.
2) Store the common files in a qpid-dispatch/console/common/ directory and use releative references in the stand-alone and hawtio code.
This prevents a user from copying the stand-alone/ directory into a web server since they would also need the common/ dir. Also, this complicates the hawtio pom.xml file greatly since some of the source would be under hawtio/ and some would be under ../common/.
3) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use relative references in the hawtio build.
This still has the problem of complicating the hawtio build greatly.
4) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use symlinks in the hawtio directory.
This solves both problems. Hawtio builds just fine with symlinks and the stand-alone/ directory can be copied because it actually contains the files.
So, is using symlinks in this manner acceptable?
Thanks,
-Ernie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Using symlinks in the qpid dispatch router console
Posted by Ernest Allen <ea...@redhat.com>.
Thanks Chuck. I went ahead and checked in the symlinks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Rolke" <cr...@redhat.com>
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:34:48 PM
Subject: Re: Using symlinks in the qpid dispatch router console
I think your option 4 would be fine.
Git will create a symlink. If you delete/rename the actual
file in stand-alone/ then you have to manually recreate
the symlink. Git does not care if the actual file exists
or not. The data referenced by the symlink is not stored
in the repository.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Allen" <ea...@redhat.com>
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:11:32 PM
> Subject: Using symlinks in the qpid dispatch router console
>
> Summary: Are there any problems associated with checking in symlinks?
>
> Here is the situation:
>
> qpid-dispatch/
> console/
> stand-alone/
> hawtio/
>
> Basically the stand-alone and hawtio versions of the qpid dispatch router use
> several of the same (html, js, css) files.
>
> I see some possibile scenarios:
> 1) Store duplicate versions of the files in the stand-alone/ and hawtio/
> directories.
> Not ideal from a development/maintenance perspective.
>
> 2) Store the common files in a qpid-dispatch/console/common/ directory and
> use releative references in the stand-alone and hawtio code.
> This prevents a user from copying the stand-alone/ directory into a web
> server since they would also need the common/ dir. Also, this complicates
> the hawtio pom.xml file greatly since some of the source would be under
> hawtio/ and some would be under ../common/.
>
> 3) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use relative
> references in the hawtio build.
> This still has the problem of complicating the hawtio build greatly.
>
> 4) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use symlinks in
> the hawtio directory.
> This solves both problems. Hawtio builds just fine with symlinks and the
> stand-alone/ directory can be copied because it actually contains the files.
>
> So, is using symlinks in this manner acceptable?
>
> Thanks,
> -Ernie
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Using symlinks in the qpid dispatch router console
Posted by Chuck Rolke <cr...@redhat.com>.
I think your option 4 would be fine.
Git will create a symlink. If you delete/rename the actual
file in stand-alone/ then you have to manually recreate
the symlink. Git does not care if the actual file exists
or not. The data referenced by the symlink is not stored
in the repository.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Allen" <ea...@redhat.com>
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:11:32 PM
> Subject: Using symlinks in the qpid dispatch router console
>
> Summary: Are there any problems associated with checking in symlinks?
>
> Here is the situation:
>
> qpid-dispatch/
> console/
> stand-alone/
> hawtio/
>
> Basically the stand-alone and hawtio versions of the qpid dispatch router use
> several of the same (html, js, css) files.
>
> I see some possibile scenarios:
> 1) Store duplicate versions of the files in the stand-alone/ and hawtio/
> directories.
> Not ideal from a development/maintenance perspective.
>
> 2) Store the common files in a qpid-dispatch/console/common/ directory and
> use releative references in the stand-alone and hawtio code.
> This prevents a user from copying the stand-alone/ directory into a web
> server since they would also need the common/ dir. Also, this complicates
> the hawtio pom.xml file greatly since some of the source would be under
> hawtio/ and some would be under ../common/.
>
> 3) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use relative
> references in the hawtio build.
> This still has the problem of complicating the hawtio build greatly.
>
> 4) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use symlinks in
> the hawtio directory.
> This solves both problems. Hawtio builds just fine with symlinks and the
> stand-alone/ directory can be copied because it actually contains the files.
>
> So, is using symlinks in this manner acceptable?
>
> Thanks,
> -Ernie
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Using symlinks in the qpid dispatch router console
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 13:11 -0400, Ernest Allen wrote:
> Summary: Are there any problems associated with checking in symlinks?
>
> Here is the situation:
>
> qpid-dispatch/
> ����console/
> ��������stand-alone/
> ��������hawtio/
>
> Basically the stand-alone and hawtio versions of the qpid dispatch
> router use several of the same (html, js, css) files.
>
> I see some possibile scenarios:
> 1) Store duplicate versions of the files in the stand-alone/ and
> hawtio/ directories.
> Not ideal from a development/maintenance perspective.
>
> 2) Store the common files in a qpid-dispatch/console/common/
> directory and use releative references in the stand-alone and hawtio
> code.
> This prevents a user from copying the stand-alone/ directory into a
> web server since they would also need the common/ dir. Also, this
> complicates the hawtio pom.xml file greatly since some of the source
> would be under hawtio/ and some would be under ../common/.
>
> 3) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use
> relative references in the hawtio build.�
> This still has the problem of complicating the hawtio build greatly.
>
> 4) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use
> symlinks in the hawtio directory.
> This solves both problems. Hawtio builds just fine with symlinks and
> the stand-alone/ directory can be copied because it actually contains
> the files.
>
> So, is using symlinks in this manner acceptable?
I would say this is OK. I caused trouble before by putting directory
symlinks in the root of the repo, but local links like you are propsing
that are only seen by console code shouldn't cause trouble (famous last
words)�
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org