Deploy Environment Weights #13069

joakime · 2025-04-30T22:08:06Z

Enhancement to handle Default Environment sorting via weights assigned to the Environment when the environment is configured with the DeploymentScanner.

gregw

I don't really like the approach of setting weights everywhere.
I'd prefer a centralized approach. Just have a setter on the scanner that takes a list of environment names and the weight is the index of the env name in that list. We can have a default list with our known environments and it will be an error if an unknown env name needs to be sorted

…stom weight option alone.

…ploy-environment-weights

joakime · 2025-05-02T04:07:18Z

I don't really like the approach of setting weights everywhere.

I reverted the XML and Test case changes.

I'd prefer a centralized approach. Just have a setter on the scanner that takes a list of environment names and the weight is the index of the env name in that list. We can have a default list with our known environments and it will be an error if an unknown env name needs to be sorted

I'm good up to the "and it will be an error if an unknown env name needs to be sorted" bit.
I left the new configureEnvironment(String name, int weight) alone.
But restored the original configureEnvironment(String name).
Also introduced a properties file that has "our" weights.

This allows for new environments, which your proposal doesn't allow.
It also allows groups to insert their own implementations of ee# environments anywhere they want (even overriding the environments we ship with a weight higher than ours if they want to)

We are down from 24 files changed, to 4 now in this PR.

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:21:45Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

    private final Server server;
    private final FilenameFilter filenameFilter;
    private final List<Path> monitoredDirs = new CopyOnWriteArrayList<>();
    private final ContextHandlerFactory contextHandlerFactory;
    private final Map<String, PathsApp> trackedApps = new HashMap<>();
    private final Map<String, Attributes> environmentAttributesMap = new HashMap<>();
-    private Set<String> trackedEnvironments = new TreeSet<>(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER);
+    private List<TrackedEnv> trackedEnvironments = new ArrayList<>();


Make it final.

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:25:10Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

@@ -301,20 +272,56 @@ void addScannerListener(Scanner.Listener listener)
        scanner.addListener(listener);
    }

+    protected int getDefaultWeight(String name)
+    {
+        URL url = getClass().getResource("environment-weights.properties");


I don't think this will work if DeploymentScanner is subclassed.

A properties file is too hard to change and it still makes weights in the "API". We don't need weights, we just need an order. If somebody defines a new environment, then setting a new order is easier than inventing a weight that is robust to future changes.

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:31:15Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

@@ -301,20 +272,56 @@ void addScannerListener(Scanner.Listener listener)
        scanner.addListener(listener);
    }

+    protected int getDefaultWeight(String name)


I don't like this method.
We should just have configureEnvironment(String, int).

Read Greg's review, he didn't like this approach

Well, I don't like the current one.

We decided to shy away from "default" environments, so the core environment was not created upfront, etc. so why now we should have upfront weights?

The weights are not everywhere, they are just in 1 method of DeploymentScanner.
Only Jetty XML code should call that method, so a custom corp-deploy module should just be aware of Jetty's xyz-deploy modules, if they are used simultaneously with corp-deploy.

Otherwise, there are no Jetty xyz-deploy modules in use, we don't load our environment-weights.properties that we don't use, and there only will be corp-deploy and spring-corp-deploy, with the weights they decide to use.

A prior commit did this
See the revert at 00f95a7 for how it looked.

I still don't like this approach either. I don't like the concept of weights being seen externally at all, as it is just an abstraction that we don't need to both the user with. I think we should just have:

void setEnvironmentOrder(List<String> environmentNames); List<String> getEnvironmentOrder();

With the default value being ["core", "static", "ee8", "ee9", "ee10", "ee11"].

If internally we turn that into weights, then fine, but no weights should be in any public API.

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:32:53Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

+     *    (Example usage: {@code static} is 100, {@code core} is 200, {@code ee8} is 1008, {@code ee11} is 1011)
+     * @return the deployment configuration for the {@link Environment}.
+     */
+    public EnvironmentConfig configureEnvironment(String name, int weight)


Just have this method and delete configureEnvironment(String name).
Rename this to trackEnvironment() maybe?
The XML files will pass in the weight and there will be no need for the environment-weights.properties file.
This method is only called by tests or XML files.

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:34:59Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

+
+        trackedEnvironments.add(new TrackedEnv(name, weight));
+    }
+
    public void setDefaultEnvironmentName(String name)


This method should be removed there is no concept of default, if not determined by the environments that are enabled.

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:36:33Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

+            .toList();
+    }
+
+    protected void addTrackedEnvironment(String name, int weight)


Make it private or package.

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:38:54Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

@@ -346,12 +353,29 @@ public String getDefaultEnvironmentName()
        if (defaultEnvironmentName == null)
        {
            return trackedEnvironments.stream()
-                .min(ENVIRONMENT_COMPARATOR)
+                .max(Comparator.comparing(TrackedEnv::weight))


Method getDefaultEnvironmentName() should be private.

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:40:51Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/test/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScannerTest.java

+        DeploymentScanner deploymentScanner = new DeploymentScanner(new Server());
+        for (Map.Entry<String, Integer> entry : input.entrySet())
+        {
+            deploymentScanner.addTrackedEnvironment(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());


Should be:

Suggested change

deploymentScanner.addTrackedEnvironment(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());

deploymentScanner.configureEnvironment(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:41:36Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

@@ -1684,4 +1721,8 @@ else if (ret != PathsApp.State.REMOVED)
            return ret != null ? ret : PathsApp.State.UNCHANGED;
        }
    }
+
+    record TrackedEnv(String name, int weight)


TrackedEnv -> TrackedEnvironment

sbordet · 2025-05-04T14:43:56Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/test/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScannerTest.java

+    public void testDefaultWeights()
+    {
+        DeploymentScanner deploymentScanner = new DeploymentScanner(new Server());
+        assertThat(deploymentScanner.getDefaultWeight("core"), is(200));


There is too much magic here.
Where the 200 come from?

I would expect this test to call configureEnvironment("core", 200) before the asserts, so it's clear where the 200 comes from.

gregw

I don't like weights being in the API at all. Just have an order list.

gregw · 2025-05-04T21:57:03Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

@@ -301,20 +272,56 @@ void addScannerListener(Scanner.Listener listener)
        scanner.addListener(listener);
    }

+    protected int getDefaultWeight(String name)


I still don't like this approach either. I don't like the concept of weights being seen externally at all, as it is just an abstraction that we don't need to both the user with. I think we should just have:

void setEnvironmentOrder(List<String> environmentNames); List<String> getEnvironmentOrder();

With the default value being ["core", "static", "ee8", "ee9", "ee10", "ee11"].

If internally we turn that into weights, then fine, but no weights should be in any public API.

gregw · 2025-05-04T21:58:24Z

jetty-core/jetty-deploy/src/main/java/org/eclipse/jetty/deploy/DeploymentScanner.java

@@ -301,20 +272,56 @@ void addScannerListener(Scanner.Listener listener)
        scanner.addListener(listener);
    }

+    protected int getDefaultWeight(String name)
+    {
+        URL url = getClass().getResource("environment-weights.properties");


A properties file is too hard to change and it still makes weights in the "API". We don't need weights, we just need an order. If somebody defines a new environment, then setting a new order is easier than inventing a weight that is robust to future changes.

sbordet · 2025-05-05T09:33:25Z

@gregw I don't see how the "order list" would work in case of custom environments.

With weights in the APIs, users will be exposed to the fact that there is an order, while calling setEnvironmentOrder() would be easily missed.

Furthermore, we would have to remember to update that list for every new EE version, while with weights, we just need to copy jetty-ee11-deploy.xml into jetty-ee12-deploy.xml, and change the new XML file (which we have to anyway, as we likely need to change package names to refer to ee12).

We don't bother users with weights, just implementers of new deployment environments, which should be rare.

Deploy Environment Weights

22f478e

joakime added the Enhancement label Apr 30, 2025

joakime requested review from gregw and sbordet April 30, 2025 22:08

joakime self-assigned this Apr 30, 2025

joakime added this to Jetty 12.1.0 Apr 30, 2025

joakime added 2 commits May 1, 2025 10:04

Dump server log if failed to start

1853867

Fix default environment calc

f02ede3

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

gregw requested changes May 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

joakime added 4 commits May 1, 2025 23:01

Revert XML changes for weight

00f95a7

Revert EE Test case changes for weight

815f3e4

Include default weights for known / common environments, but leave cu…

5045ed3

…stom weight option alone.

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/jetty-12.1.x' into fix/12.1.x/de…

927511a

…ploy-environment-weights

joakime requested a review from gregw May 2, 2025 04:04

sbordet requested changes May 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

gregw requested changes May 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Deploy Environment Weights #13069

Deploy Environment Weights #13069

joakime commented Apr 30, 2025

This comment was marked as outdated.

gregw left a comment

joakime commented May 2, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

gregw May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

joakime May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

joakime May 4, 2025

gregw May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025

gregw left a comment

gregw May 4, 2025

gregw May 4, 2025

sbordet commented May 5, 2025

	deploymentScanner.addTrackedEnvironment(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
	deploymentScanner.configureEnvironment(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());

Deploy Environment Weights #13069

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Deploy Environment Weights #13069

Conversation

joakime commented Apr 30, 2025

This comment was marked as outdated.

gregw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joakime commented May 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbordet May 4, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gregw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbordet commented May 5, 2025

sbordet May 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading