Inter-war dependencies: Excluding parts of it

[mazi]

Hi,

I have two war deployments and I would like the second one (admin.war) to use some (but not all) classes from the first one (ppay-web.war). I tried to achieve this using jboss-deployment-structure.xml, as in the example at the end of this page:

https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/AS7/Class+Loading+in+AS7

I've tried lots of stuf with different <include>s and <excludes> but I can't get them to do anything. For example, when using the following config (or anything similar), still everything from ppay-web.war is visible in admin.war:

<jboss-deployment-structure>

    <deployment>

        <dependencies>

            ...

            <module name="deployment.com.profpay.data"/>

        </dependencies>

    </deployment>

    <module name="deployment.com.profpay.data" >

        <exports>

            <exclude path="/**"/>

        </exports>

        <dependencies>

            <module name="deployment.ppay-web.war" export="true" >

                <imports>

                    <include path="qqq" />

                    <exclude path="/**" />

                </imports>

                <exports>

                    <exclude path="/**"/>

                </exports>

            </module>

        </dependencies>

    </module>

</jboss-deployment-structure>

(Note that this is just an example, my final goal is not to exclude EVERYTHING, of course, but just parts.)

Setting export="false" does exclude everything, though. (But as I said, this is not what I want.)

The above example defines a new module named "deployment.com.profpay.data"; I've also tried without defining a new module, like this, with similar results:

    <deployment>

        <dependencies>

            ...

            <module name="deployment.ppay-web.war">

                <imports>

                    <exclude path="/**"/>

                    <include path="com/profpay/data/**"/>

                </imports>

            </module>

        </dependencies>

    </deployment>

So, what is the right way to use just parts of a war in anoter war as dependencies?

-----------------------------

BTW, if I use the whole ppay-web.war in admin.war as dependency, i get the error below. I don't understand this error but I know it can be avoided by correctly excluding what I don't need from ppay-web.war: If I manually strip ppay-web.war down to just what I need in admin.war, admin works fine (but then ppay-web of course doesn't).

16:09:38,679 ERROR [org.jboss.msc.service.fail] (MSC service thread 1-4) MSC00001: Failed to start service jboss.deployment.unit."admin-2.0.war".INSTALL: org.jboss.msc.service.StartException in service jboss.deployment.unit."admin-2.0.war".INSTALL: Failed to process phase INSTALL of deployment "admin-2.0.war"

          at org.jboss.as.server.deployment.DeploymentUnitPhaseService.start(DeploymentUnitPhaseService.java:121) [jboss-as-server-7.1.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT.jar:7.1.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT]

          at org.jboss.msc.service.ServiceControllerImpl$StartTask.startService(ServiceControllerImpl.java:1824) [jboss-msc-1.0.1.GA.jar:1.0.1.GA]

          at org.jboss.msc.service.ServiceControllerImpl$StartTask.run(ServiceControllerImpl.java:1759) [jboss-msc-1.0.1.GA.jar:1.0.1.GA]

          at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) [:1.6.0_24]

          at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908) [:1.6.0_24]

          at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662) [:1.6.0_24]

Caused by: org.jboss.as.server.deployment.DeploymentUnitProcessingException: No method found with id: Method afterTransactionCompletion(boolean) on class (or its super class) class org.jboss.seam.transaction.EjbSynchronizations

          at org.jboss.as.server.deployment.reflect.ClassReflectionIndexUtil.findRequiredMethod(ClassReflectionIndexUtil.java:82) [jboss-as-server-7.1.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT.jar:7.1.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT]

          at org.jboss.as.server.deployment.reflect.ClassReflectionIndexUtil.findRequiredMethod(ClassReflectionIndexUtil.java:107) [jboss-as-server-7.1.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT.jar:7.1.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT]

          at org.jboss.as.ee.component.ViewDescription$DefaultConfigurator.configure(ViewDescription.java:158)

          at org.jboss.as.ee.component.ComponentDescription$DefaultFirstConfigurator.configure(ComponentDescription.java:879)

          at org.jboss.as.ee.component.deployers.EEModuleConfigurationProcessor.deploy(EEModuleConfigurationProcessor.java:72)

          at org.jboss.as.server.deployment.DeploymentUnitPhaseService.start(DeploymentUnitPhaseService.java:115) [jboss-as-server-7.1.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT.jar:7.1.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT]

          ... 5 more

[mazi]

Ok, I think I've figured this one out. To exclude the class test.excluded.Excluded, I could use any one of these:

                    <exclude path="test/excluded**"/>

                    <exclude path="test/excluded*"/>

                    <exclude path="test/excluded"/>

                    <exclude path="test/excl*"/>

while neither of these did the trick:

                    <exclude path="test/excluded/**"/>

                    <exclude path="test/excluded/*"/>

Funny, because the last two seemed to me the most logical of all...

I think this will help me solve the above problem, but this wildcard syntax still seems a bit weird to me. Is it explained anywhere? (Or is it just common knowledge from some other domain (eg. Linux) which I know nothing about?)

BTW, to exclude everything, this worked for me:

                    <exclude path="**"/>

and this (taken from the docs) didn't:

                    <exclude path="/**"/>

[mazi]

There's more. To include just the stuff from package test.included I did this:

                    <include path="test/included*"/>

                    <exclude path="**"/>

While this (just reverse order) did't work (the effect was that everything was excluded):

                    <exclude path="**"/>

                    <include path="test/included*"/>

So this got got me both 1) a bit closer to the solution of my problem, and 2) a bit more confused.