Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update IntelliJ run configurations and service scripts #860

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 14, 2024

Conversation

labkey-adam
Copy link
Contributor

Rationale

Need to add --add-opens=java.base/java.io=ALL-UNNAMED flag to JVM startup options for Snowflake

Copy link
Member

@labkey-tchad labkey-tchad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we know how this lists were determined? The IntelliJ run configurations don't match the embedded install scripts; nor do they match what we specify when starting Tomcat with Gradle.
They seem to match standalone Tomcat, but not quite.

@labkey-adam
Copy link
Contributor Author

labkey-adam commented Aug 14, 2024

Do we know how this lists were determined? The IntelliJ run configurations don't match the embedded install scripts; nor do they match what we specify when starting Tomcat with Gradle. They seem to match standalone Tomcat, but not quite.

I can't tell you the full history here. These have evolved over time as we've discovered issues or added libraries that require specific flags (like the Snowflake JDBC driver). I'm not surprised that Tomcat's standard list and ours are different. Tomcat has a lot of features that LabKey never uses and LabKey has dependencies that Tomcat doesn't. We should be self consistent, though. Maybe we should try reconciling once we drop standalone Tomcat support and the corresponding startup scripts.

@labkey-jeckels
Copy link
Contributor

This change seems fine but I like the followup idea for making them more consistent.

@labkey-stuartm @labkey-willm @labkey-jony heads up as I imagine this would need to propagate to cloud deployments when/if someone attempts to adopt Snowflake. That involves adding a new data source to application.properties, so there would also be other config customizations for an instance to adopt it.

@labkey-adam
Copy link
Contributor Author

This change seems fine but I like the followup idea for making them more consistent.

@labkey-stuartm @labkey-willm @labkey-jony heads up as I imagine this would need to propagate to cloud deployments when/if someone attempts to adopt Snowflake. That involves adding a new data source to application.properties, so there would also be other config customizations for an instance to adopt it.

@labkey-stuartm @labkey-willm @labkey-jony @labkey-jeckels Snowflake usage will likely be low, and probably non-existent on our cloud deployments for the foreseeable future, but I'd still be in favor of adding this flag everywhere, including all of our startup scripts, service definitions, etc. for consistency. I've added a task to the Snowflake story.

@labkey-stuartm
Copy link

This change seems fine but I like the followup idea for making them more consistent.
@labkey-stuartm @labkey-willm @labkey-jony heads up as I imagine this would need to propagate to cloud deployments when/if someone attempts to adopt Snowflake. That involves adding a new data source to application.properties, so there would also be other config customizations for an instance to adopt it.

@labkey-stuartm @labkey-willm @labkey-jony @labkey-jeckels Snowflake usage will likely be low, and probably non-existent on our cloud deployments for the foreseeable future, but I'd still be in favor of adding this flag everywhere, including all of our startup scripts, service definitions, etc. for consistency. I've added a task to the Snowflake story.

Java_Reflection_Ops added with this PR LabKey/install-script#72

@labkey-adam labkey-adam merged commit c39ec41 into release24.7-SNAPSHOT Aug 14, 2024
5 checks passed
@labkey-adam labkey-adam deleted the 24.7_fb_snowflake branch August 14, 2024 21:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants