Hi Knut
That’s pretty big! I wonder if we should consider distributing it
separately as well ie. without the dhis and birt wars. One of the
features we can add to the “control panel” is a user
loading/unloading/updating of the wars.
Some sort of automated update mechanism would be nice, yes…
I wasn’t really thinking of automatic at this stage … just a simple
user interface. Hopefully have something finished tomorrow before I
get distracted again.
Sure - that’s what I did with BitRock also - and I think it’s quite sufficient that the user does not have to go directly in and replace files (though that is of course not to hard, having a GUI for it gives more assurance thing won’t go wrong).
I agree it would be nice, but mainly because there should be no need to
download new birt.war files very often, whereas you would like to be able to
update dhis.war without having to download a package whcih also contains
birt.war if you already have that. In comparison to the wars, the lite
server is so small as not to matter significantly. It makes eminent sense to
have at least dhis.war separate, but it would be even more ideal if people
would only have to download the diff with their current war, using rsynch or
similar (as mentioned before).
I actually developed this kind of functionality (swapping wars, changing
database) in BitRock last summer, but BR is very far from an ideal
development environment…
Been thinking a bit about this. Given that the modus-operandi of
dhis-lite is to run with exploded wars, then theoretically it should
be much more feasible to update a jar here and there or even just
mirror the whole exploded directory structure (using wget).
Yes, there are definetely a couple of possibilities…but you would have to know which files to get, which I guess can be just based on the date? And include a Java version of wget inside dhis2lite?
BTW, should we let dhis2-lite run on port 80? Then people would just have to go to http://localhost. The problem would be intereference with any Apache servers on the machine (not very common), and unfortunately also with Skype in my experience (much more likely). Letting the user specify port (but give default 80, and suggest changing to port 82 in case of problems?).
k
···
2009/4/16 Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com
2009/4/16 Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com:
2009/4/16 Lars Helge Øverland larshelge@gmail.com