- This topic has 9 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We are a five-programmers team trying to use MyEclipse to develop a web project. (We each got a MyEclipse licence.) Due to secuity reasons, our hardware support team here would like to know if it’s possible that all five of us develop from one developing server instead of each developing on our local pc. (If from one server, we each will have our own development space.)
If it is possible, what is the pros and cons of using one developing server vs. using 5 individual servers concerning project development? How difficult is the set up process for one shared developing server?
thanks!
It’s theoretically possible to develop with software installed on a remote server, but the full application server installation would have to be mounted as a file system on your machine. Basically, if you can make the remote installation ‘look’ like a local one, then you can do it. However, when the server is started, it will still be running on your local desktop, not the remote machine. For five developers, you’d still need five unique server installations.
The advantage of using local servers is that the developers have full control of the servers. Since servers need to be started, stopped often during development, it simply isn’t reasonable for multiple developers to share one instance as they’d constantly be interfering with each other’s work.
For five developers, how to have “five unique server installations”? I’m not quite sure what do you mean by that. Did you mean configuration?
And does this indicate that one server on the remote machine can only be used by one developer at one time, i.e., one developer one instance? Or five configurations towards one server?
But if so, why later in your response, you said it is “multiple developers share one instance”?If five people are using the server at the same time, when one stops his instance, would it affect others’?
Thanks!
(btw, we can have server installation mounted as a local drive on our local machines.)For five developers, how to have “five unique server installations”? I’m not quite sure what do you mean by that. Did you mean configuration?
You *should* be able to do it either way, however our supported development model is really one full server installation per developer.
And does this indicate that one server on the remote machine can only be used by one developer at one time, i.e., one developer one instance? Or five configurations towards one server?
Minimally, each developer would need their own configuration. For complete flexibility you could install the complete server 5 times also. I’d suggest you try it with two configurations and two developers and see if that works for you. You will still need to remotely mount the drives.
If five people are using the server at the same time, when one stops his instance, would it affect others’?
No, because Jboss is actually running on each developer’s local machine, not on the remote one. However, each user will need their own server configuration (domain) so that they don’t conflict with each others changes.
(btw, we can have server installation mounted as a local drive on our local machines.)
Good. That’s essential.
Thanks for your reply. But can you confirm for me:
1. If each person has their own instance of the server, they won’t interfere with each other. They can freely start, stop or restart each of their own server without affecting others. (If yes, isn’t it almost like full control server on a local pc? )
2. Tomcat will also run on each developer’s local machin. (We use Tomcat instead of JBoss)I also would like to know what you meant by “one FULL server installation per developer”. Does that mean that one developer must also have one physical copy of MyEclipse to run even on remote server? If that’s the case, configuring an instance for each developer (instead of installing the complete server 5 times) is not an option then. Am I right here? When you say “instance of server”, do you just mean “configuration”? and “complete server”.
Thanks again!
1) Yes, that’s correct.
If yes, isn’t it almost like full control server on a local pc?
Yes, because you are running on your local pc, not on the server. The only thing the server is doing is acting like more network file space, effectively becoming a really really slow external hard drive for you. That’s it.
2) Yes
Does that mean that one developer must also have one physical copy of MyEclipse to run even on remote server?
Each developer will need their own instance of MyEclipse installed on their local machine.
Perhaps at this point you could actually try to set it up as you’d like it and see if it works for you? We’ve actually been talking about it longer than it would’ve taken you to do the installs and test it at this point. 🙂
Sorry Scott, I’m still a little confused.
By saying “Each developer will need their own instance of MyEclipse installed on their local machine”, did you mean we need to install Eclipse and Tomcat on the server and must install a physical copy of MyEclipse as client on each developers’ local PC?Thanks for your patience. The reason I kept asking before actually testing is: I’m working for a government agency, which is regulated strictly and I myself don’t have full right to access the server. I have to collect enough information and come up with a solid action plan before discussing with our hardware support team.
** NOTE: Below when I say “production server” I actually am referring to the “main server”, whatever it is… I just called it “production” even though it might be a development server.
yax3,
I believe Scott was saying that on the production server you have your app server (Tomcat, JBoss, etc.), and that’s it. Now on each developer’s machine, you have Eclipse/MyEclipse installed. Additionally you could also have local installs (on each of the developer machines) of the app server (Tomcat, JBoss, etc.) so as each developer is working, hey can quickly deploy LOCALLY and see if his change worked and didn’t crash anything. Each developer does this all day long all the while checking their changes back into the source control repository.THEN, when the code reaches a point that everyone thinks is good, you check out a clean copy of the project from your source control repository and put it ON the production server, and walla, you’re all done.
Keeping the developers setup like individual self-contained islands like seems limiting, but when you introduce the concept of a source control package (like CVS), this allows them to constantly share their changes to the code with eachother. But on each of their own machines, they have their own mirror of the production server to smash on and work with, without screwing eachother up.
For example, if you did have all 5 developers sharing the same development server on a central computer, and you have one developer deploy a change that causes all of the database connections to be consumed, then all the other developers would have to stop testing until the 1st developer fixed the bug. When you have all of the individual developers setup on their local machines with their own copies of the production server, they can crash it, smash it and break it without effecting any others.
Sooooo, going back to your very first post, my answers are “I *think* it could technically be possible to share 1 development server, but its so wrong and would introduce SO MUCH of a headache, that you can almost consider it a non-option”. This is all of course just my opinion, YMMV.
Thanks very much for a thorough explanation, Riyad. Your opinion agrees with my initial gut feeling about this sharing server thing. 🙂
Thanks very much for a thorough explanation, Riyad.
No problem, I’m happy that it might have helped.
Your opinion agrees with my initial gut feeling about this sharing server thing.
I know what you mean, hopefully with all this info the security guys can see the angle you are comming from and lighten up a little.
