So, I can see many files under customize folder under platform.
Is there any other way to oveerride platform in general other than putting it in customize folder?
If we have to override some OOTB file there are two ways:
1) If its in some extension, we can create customized extension and do our changes.
2) Add stuff into customize folder and do ant customize.
What if OOTB file is in platform? Is there any other way?
I expect to customize platform without adding it to customize folder.
Is the function/bean you want to override is injected through Spring?
If no, and you need to override say some jar, class or xml. You have choice of ant customize or buildcallbacks.xml
If yes, it's no different than overriding any other beans from parent extension. The only thing is that you will not need to create an extension dependency as platform is available globally.
For example : If you wish to override some function in DefaultCatalogDao to give your own implementation. You can do it like...
Create your own implementation extending the platform related service
Inject your custom bean with alias of the defaultCatalogDao
<alias alias="catalogDao" name="customCatalogDao"/>
<bean id="customCatalogDao" class="......CustomCatalogDao" parent="defaultCatalogDao"/>
For Commerce Cloud
You can change platform files using customize folder in Commerce Cloud V2 too. You would need to create a folder in your custom repository with name _CUSTOMIZE_ and then as you do in non cloud version, add your files (with exact folder structure as in platform).
Once you creare above folder, CCV2 build strategy automatically picks and deploys it, without any additional configuration.
Hope it helps!
Using buildcallbacks you can replace the files even the files in platform jar .
You can simply copy paste your file or write your own shell script to execute it and copy file to platform but how would it be different from ant customize. And why would you want to go away from standard hybris practices? Would that give you any extra benefit? I am sure that would only lead to issues during upgrade etc. Its not spring bean injection where you could tell your platform to use your implementation instead on other. There is no sense in wasting time in finding something which doesnt go along with product best practices.
Related
Is there a command to build only the administration part of a specified plugin? Right now I am building the whole administration to build the public resources for the plugin, which of course takes more time. Since every plugin has it's own resources, shouldn't it be possible to do this?
Since Shopware 6.4.8.0 it seems to be possible to only build the extensions (not a single one, but at least only extensions) by adding the environment variable SHOPWARE_ADMIN_BUILD_ONLY_EXTENSIONS=1
There are no out-of-the-box scripts to selectively build only one module.
The build is based on one single webpack config in vendor/shopware/administration/Resources/app/administration which includes each extension's code as as submodule.
If you are asking to speed up development, you might want to use bin/watch-administration.sh which should only rebuild changed files when you save them.
I am currently working in a WEB Java project and I have the following requirement: I have to make sure our customers don't have access to the packaged files in order to change them. Actually, I'd like to do that with only a few of those classes but without using any obfuscators due to the size of my project and the resources it uses to accomplish some tasks (reflection, annotations, interceptors, etc).
Does anybody have any tips?
Thanks,
Luan
I'm developing a Liferay application, consisting on 2 different portlets, an both have to make certain operations in common, so I decided to put that operations in static methods in an external Utils class.
I have to externalize that class to avoid duplicating the same code in both portlets, and I want to have the portlets in different WAR files.
I know I can package the Utils class in a JAR file, but we are still developing and we don't want to regenerate the JAR and restart the Tomcat for every change.
Which is the best option and how can I perform it?
If you're using the Liferay SDK, you can use the clients (recently changed to shared) directory to put your common code.
A good example is how deploy-listener-shared is used in conjunction with deploy-listener-hook.
From what it looks like, all the configuration you need to do is to modify your build.xml files that will use the client\shared classes. If you look at build file of deploy-listener-hook you can see all you need to add is the.
For the new SDK:
<property name="import.shared" value="my-utils-shared" />
For the older SDK:
<property name="dependent.clients" value="my-utils-client" />
Hope this helps!
There is another method that involves building a JAR file but it doesn't require a server restart (on Tomcat at least).
Write a build script for your JAR file so it compiles, builds the JAR and finally copies it to the following location:
{tomcat}/webapps/ROOT/WEB-INF/lib
Then in your portlet open the "liferay-plugin-package.properties" (in Liferay Developer Studio / Liferay IDE this should open with a nice GUI).
Then add the name of your JAR to the "portal-dependency-jars" list in this file so in the source it would like (Or just hit the "Add" button in the GUI and select the JARs you want):
portal-dependency-jars=my-custom-lib.jar,my-other-custom-lib.jar
Save the file, and redeploy the portlet, and the JAR will be copied across when the portlet is deployed.
I've used this method for custom JARs, and 3rd party JARs that I've needed to use in my portlets.
For the development phase just package the jar file with both applications.
Unless one application depends on the other somehow it is completely ok.
Another solution is to use JRebel tool. It will allow you to redeploy jar in tomcat without restarting.
Also you may have several portlets in one .war. You may just define them both in portlet.xml.
I'd like to ask you for best practices with developing with Liferay SDK.
I have the SDK downloaded, I have Eclipse ready, it works, I can create new portlets and run local Liferay instance to test it.
Here is my situation - all the source code I have is in the Eclipse workspace, currently it is only portlets what I'm working on.
Liferay SDK I have in completely different location than workspace. Let's say ~/dev/liferay_sdk.
Eclipse workspace is located in ~/workspace.
At the beggining, it was not working like that. Eclipse from some reason can't find or use Liferay SDK. When I changed "Project validation" in Eclipse/Liferay configuration to "Ignore" the "Liferay Plugin SDK is not valid", it started to work without problems.
Next problem happend when it comes to need to build a WAR for example.
In the portlet directory in the workspace is present "build.xml" file. But inside it refers to another xml file, which should be located one directory up, and this one refers to more thing in relatively location and so on.
In short, it assumes that you have the portlets etc, inside the Liferay SDK.
Like "~/dev/liferay_sdk/portlets".
My question is, Am I wrong completely, or could you suggest me the best practices with this?
I don't want to mix SDK and the code, it sounds wrong to me.
Thanks for help!
I think, the best practice is still when your portlet projects are located inside the Liferay Plugins SDK directory. That way you can take all the advantages of the Liferay IDE plugin for Eclipse, for example. Because as far as I understand Liferay IDE will not allowed you to have portlet projects in another location. It's pretty easy to import projects to Eclipse from inside the Liferay SDK directory, and that's not problem.
But I also faced the same sort of problem when tried to save portlet project to the Git repository. Possible solutions with symbolic links didn't work correctly on every system. Thus I slightly modified the build.xml file to be able to run ant tasks from any directory. For portlets it was something like that:
<project name="your-portlet" basedir="." default="deploy">
<property file="build.properties" />
<property name="project.dir" value="${liferay.sdk.home}" />
<import file="${project.dir}/build-common-plugin.xml" />
</project>
Notice that you should define property "liferay.sdk.home" in build.properties and it should be path to the Liferay Plugins SDK.
As for other types of Liferay plugins (themes, hooks, etc.) you should import another build file for building that type of plugin. For example, for themes it will be:
<import file="${project.dir}/themes/build-common-theme.xml" />
Hope you'll get the idea. :) But think twice before doing something like that.
Liferay plugins are developed inside the Liferay Plugins SDK, its called SDK for a very good reason.
I don't find anything wrong with the plugins-SDK and the code tied togather, below are few reasons why:
If you see the liferay repository of plugins on github, you would find all the sample portlets and other plugins are stored in their respective folders inside plugins-SDK.
So if you want to develop liferay plugins (with or without IDE), the best practice (the only efficient way I think) is to have the projects created inside the respective folders of plugins SDK like portlet projects inside portlets folder, hook project inside hooks folder etc.
If you have used Liferay IDE when you create a plugin project (Liferay project) in this IDE you specify the SDK and the server runtime and what it does is it creates the project inside your Plugins SDK and copies the .settings, .classpath & .project file inside the project created. It does not create the project inside your workspace as eclipse normally does for other projects.
Hope I have managed explain it clearly and this was what you wanted.
I'm already quite happy with the other answers, this could have been distributed through comments at those, but a separate answer gives some more structuring options:
As Prakash says, it's not really bad to do that. In addition to his answer, you do not need to have your code in the workspace directory. Eclipse is happy to put it anywhere in the filesystem - thus while you work with Eclipse you don't even care where exactly your code is (and as you check it into version control - right? - you actually never need to care.
If you want to use Liferay's OOTB ant scripts: They are geared towards exactly the setup you describe: Work in the SDK directory. It's actually not bad, but if you don't like it, you just have to accept that you can't work with build.xml without changing it (like Artem suggests).
Another option is to use maven - this also bypasses the sdk (and the Liferay IDE integration), so you're again free to put your sourcecode whereever you like and let maven do the rest.
I can imagine some rather esoteric and rare issues with Artem's suggestion (like referring to custom parent themes when you imply some relative position) but I consider that as extremely minor, so if that works for you: Go ahead. Just keep in mind that you don't fulfill the basic assumptions that the SDK makes, so you might have to change things that violate the assumptions. I can't imagine this being too hard if you keep this in mind.
Of course, what you miss with that solution is the neat handling of including build.${username}.properties - you'll have to have your own build.properties that define ${liferay.sdk.home}. If you're not working in a team, that's ok. Otherwise you'll have to invent this yourself (and code it) or rely on global parameters to be configured with every team member.
I need to share a library (built in-house) between portlets and I prefer to put it in a common place instead of adding it as dependency to every portlet that need it because I want to update the library once. Can I build a hook or ext plugin that the portlets can refer to and access the library? I know that you can add it to the common library directory and add it to liferay-plugin-package.properties for each portlet but the location depends on the application server. I want to know, there is a standard or cleaner way to do this? Thanks in advance.
With the tomcat bundle, the common usage is to put these in the tomcat/lib/ext folder.
There is one big drawback, every modification in this folder will require a server restart.