I am working with 10.5.4. I would like to use SVN to keep versioning of my site contents so as editors to be able to commit their changes. I have read a lot about mounting the VFS and that stuff, however with that way everyone coulld access and commit others changes
I would appreciate any further information about using versioning not only for module developments but also for site contents
I know, this is probably not exactly what you are looking for, but you may have a look at the OpenCms Maven plugin.
The main focus of this plugin is, to ease the development process of OpenCms projects. But with a good setup and Maven configuration you might use it to put the contents of your production site under version control. If you are interested, you'll find more information on the official website of the plugin.
Related
We have a static website, we outsource the website maintenance, we don't have source code repository, so contractor edits the code on production server directly.
It has no problem, as our website built decades ago with old school html4 only. What it store on the web server, is what the source code is.
At today, the web site can be composed by UI framework, eg. Vue, React....etc. Sometimes the HTML file contains web components and other JS module. I have done a little google to learn that, building a website today need NPM, NodeJs, Webpack, Gulp....etc, they manage js module and bundle / built the production code...
My problem is, we like to revamp our website with modern UI (HTML5, CSS3, mobile friendly...). The tools I just mentioned will "process" the source code and output production code. We don't have the source code server (eg. git server), for our contractor to store the source code. ( our company management doesn't allow us to purchase private repository services on the internet. eg..github, gitlab...etc).
Can I keep using the old school way? the source code on the production web server is always the only source code...
I have tried myself to using the require.js, it loads js module on the browser, so I can handle module loading without node.js and Webpack, and writing the web component in vanilla js. Is it the only solution I can do?
You certainly could continue to manage this site the "old school" way, but in doing so, you'll be ignoring the benefits that all the modern tools give you.
For example
no git (or other version control) means no rolling back changes (or errors)
using version control software also means you have a backup and you don't need to set up a backup scheme on the production server to save your files
editing on the production server means if someone makes a typo, the site is messed up; etc.
I would strongly recommend modern tools; if cost is a concern, consider free tools:
Bitbucket has long offered free private repositories; Github has recently also started offering them.
Tools such as Hugo, Jekyll, and others permit creation of static sites quickly and easily.
Edit in answer to some of the comments...
Switching to a more modern development workflow (including version control) is not just about saving money, it's also about:
Does the employer/client want their developer(s) spending a lot of time managing the site - possibly including fixing problems - or do they want them working on something else?
Is the employer/client willing to have periods of time when the site does not work correctly? As #birdspider mentions in the comments above, if you have multiple people working on the website on the production server, they're going to be messing up each others' work. Note that the use of a VCS helps avoid avoid some of the problems with people stepping on each others' toes and it also make fixing those conflicts so much easier.
If you approach the employer/client with these points and their answer is "we just don't like it", then there's probably not much else you can do. If I were in your shoes, I'd be strongly tempted to either a) implement something on my own (just to preserve my own sanity, although really this is probably not a good idea) or b) find a new job.
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.
Generally speaking, should one only add the central Maven Repository to a pom.xml + optionally any local Maven Repositories ? In theory (I think?) anybody can set up a repository - is there a 'Maven Repository<->Maven Repository' circle of trust or something ?
How do I know for instance that I'm really downloading (say) the log4j compiled JARs and not some bastardized / evil version ?
Few things you can do to feel comfortable:
Use a local repository manager like Nexus or JFrog, and proxy any repositories that you want to use. There are few benefits to this:
A local manager can keep track of the SHA hashes to make sure that a jar didn't change under your feet.
You can limit the repositories that your developers can access.
Stick with Maven Central when you can - so many people use it that if someone switched out the log4j version with something untrustworthy everyone would know very quickly (because the hashes wouldn't line up). Generally this argument will also hold true for any other repositories that hold popular libraries (eg sourceforge, google code, codehaus, etc)
Things are only likely to get risky if you're using some dude's repo who wrote some library that's not very popular out in the wild. In practice this rarely happens. In those cases, maybe you can just build the code yourself to be sure.
Best practice is not to add any repository into the pom.xml. The best solution is to configure either into the settings.xml or the best solution is to use a repository manager. Furthermore the best thing is to work with maven central if you don't have a repo-manager, but for that you don't need to configure anything, cause Maven Central is the default within Maven itself. Maven Central is control adminstrative by people of Sonatype and it is not that simple to get something into Maven Central. What you can do to secure the transport a little bit more is to turn on the checksum checking which is controled by a configuration in the settings.xml.
I'm new to both of these tools, and I'm also very new to Linux system administration, so I apologize ahead of time for what may seem like a total n00b question.
Basically, I'm starting a whole new project from scratch. Yaaay! Exciting! However, I'm a little lost on how to set up the project. I've installed both git and maven on my dev machine and run through some tutorials. I've also set up git on my server, and have successfully pushed code to it and pulled code from it.
So, first question : Is it even a good idea to use git and maven together? Git seems like the best source control system, and Maven seems like the best build system. Are they known to work well together? Or am I needlessly creating trouble for myself at this early (and precarious) stage of the project? I've used ant enough to know that I don't want to use it, and I'm not really a fan of svn, although I'll use it if I have to.
Second question : Given that these two tools work well together, what's the Best Practices way of setting them up? I know that git is "peer-to-peer", although I suppose nothing is stopping you from setting up a single repository for the git user and having all the devs sync up with that repo when it's time to do a build. Is that the right way to go? How about Maven? Maven seems kinda single-user oriented. Like, everybody sets up Maven on their own machine and has their own Maven repo, right? Or wrong? Would it make sense to create a "Maven user" on my server, and have that user do all my builds from the "main" git repo?
Apologies if I'm totally mistaken on how to use these tools. As I said, I'm pretty new to these things. Any help you have is appreciated.
(also, I'm working on Linux, doing Java dev work in Eclipse, using Spring for the framework, mysql for the data store, and Hibernate as an ORM. Don't know of any of that matters)
Thanks!
Q1: Yes, git will work well with any build systems. Usually your VCS is well abstracted with any modern build system. Ensure that you set up your .gitignore file so that you are not tracking any artifacts from builds.
Q2: The best practice is to have an integration branch to build from. While developing, use topic or feature branches. When ready, merge into the integration branch and push that up to the central repository where maven can build from. Google git-flow for more ideas. You generally want a central build server if you are working on a team to ensure you are building on the same machine. This is not the case if you are working alone or maybe just one developer.
Hope this helps.
Are there security concerns with using Maven? I use Ant today for my main project, but I do use Maven for my "samples" project where I write program spikes. I do like some parts of Maven, but have a concern with downloading my jars through the tool. Is this an unfounded concern? How secure is "http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/"? Is there a more secure way of using the tool?
Thanks.
It's pretty secure and standard. If ever the security of http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/ is compromised, there will have big repercussion in Java devs. I never heard that this site is hacked.
That said, you are not bounded by default repository. You can configure your own repository using Nexus, Artifactory and install safe artifacts manually to them. You may also block remote repositories using Nexus/Artifactory setting. Although, I never needed to do this. But look here, perhaps it's possible.
Please note that you will have to block your local repository to use "repo1", else the local repository will download artifacts from there by default.
Edit 1: added missing link