[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1177) Alt. distro? Spring Boot JAR is not great for "dropping in" Plugins

["Michael Vorburger (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1177?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17297720#comment-17297720 ] 

Michael Vorburger commented on FINERACT-1177:
---------------------------------------------

[https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1658] proposed (initial) related documentation.

> Alt. distro? Spring Boot JAR is not great for "dropping in" Plugins
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FINERACT-1177
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1177
>             Project: Apache Fineract
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>            Assignee: Aleksandar Vidakovic
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> While I was working on FINERACT-1127, I've realized that the Spring Boot JAR distribution is not great for us to open up Fineract to allow adding plugins to it... 
> I've "solved" this in https://github.com/vorburger/fineract-pentaho/blob/develop/run by "unpacking" our 'official' JAR distro, and then dropping the plugin into that.
> The reason why we have to do like that is because https://github.com/vorburger/fineract-pentaho/compare/broken_no-unpack_Fineract-SpringBoot-JAR cannot work - that leads to {{NoClassDefFoundError ... Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:}} when Java's (not Spring Boot's...) classloader was loading PentahoReportingProcessServiceImpl, it could not find ReportingProcessService - because that is hidden inside /BOOT-INF/classes/ where Spring Boot's special classloader will grab it from - but Java's can't find it.
> But it made me wonder... why are we distributing Fineract (only) as a Spring Boot magic JAR  Why is Spring Boot not creating a "simple" good ol' uberJAR?  Could / should we change that?
> Reading https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/gradle-plugin/reference/html, I don't immediately see an option to change that.  Do you?  https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/gradle-plugin/reference/html/#packaging-executable-configuring-unpacking or https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/gradle-plugin/reference/html/#packaging-layered-jars look like it's adding more magic, instead of less... ;-) Would perhaps https://docs.spring.io/spring-boot/docs/current/gradle-plugin/reference/html/#reacting-to-other-plugins-application be more suitable for us, if we want to "open up" Fineract to let people easily add plugins to it? Or should we have https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/application_plugin.html based ZIP as an ADDITIONAL 3rd distribution (besides the JAR and WAR, which we could keep), instead of replacing the regular Spring Boot JAR?
> Or is this a total non-issue, we can simply document how future plugins can be installed, like my {{run}} script does? Could cause confusion.
> [~ptuomola] [~aleks] do you perhaps have any thoughts about this?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)