Don’t forget my blog has moved!

Check out my new post on comparing build management in Eclipse C and Java development tools, here:

Agile: A Set of Common Sense Optimizations

Don’t forget my blog has moved!

Check out my new post on comparing build management in Eclipse C and Java development tools, here:

Comparing Build Management in Eclipse CDT and JDT

This blog was technically for all the OM Services folk to blog, but since I did 95% of the posts, I went ahead and took it over. Selvi Dayabaran, Adam Gabor and my blogs are now splitting off from this site to the following respective URL’s:

Selvi’s Blog

Adam Gabor’s Blog

Sean Blanton’s Blog

The content up to this point will appear in both places for convenience. Please update your RSS feeds if you are using them. See you there!

Sean

Continuing my last post about using a service such as Twitter (or Yammer or equivalent) to create “pull” notifications that serve the individual, I’ve set up a Meister workflow to update the status of the Twitter handle @builds after a successful build.

I’ve set up a JBoss build in Meister involving a web service and consumer. This was originally developed in MyEclipse, but the Meister Eclipse plug-in allows the native Eclipse build to be externalized (a better approach than Maven). So, I am just dealing with that, which simulates a development continuous integration or QA build.

I have a workflow that has the two main Meister build tasks, “Generate Build Control File”, and “Build Targets”. The first gathers local and server metadata consolidating that into something like a makefile or Ant script depending on your perspective. The second is similar to running make or Ant.

This is a simple workflow to illustrate our messaging technique. Normally, we’d use an email notification task, but I’ve replaced that with an activity called “Tweet”. This calls a simple Perl script, called omtweet.pl that uses Net::Twitter. Here is why we use Perl a lot - the code is simple to update your Twitter status:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

use Net::Twitter;
 
my $twit = Net::Twitter->new(
  {username => "myuser", password => "mypass"; }); 
 
my $result = $twit->update(
  {status => "My current Status"});

I created a slightly more elaborate script that takes arguments and passes in a “Build Successful” message. If Java is your thing, look at Davanum Srinivas’ post and for .NET, there is Twitteroo.

Next, I run the build and we see the steps complete in real time on the workflow monitor.

The key is the last step, of course:

And, the proof is in the pudding:

I used the $(JOB_NUMBER) macro in Meister to get an incremental build number passed to omtweet.pl. Of course, following @builds and choosing device updates, I got a text message on my cell phone. I tried to get a picture of my cell phone with the message, but I haven’t worked out how to do that yet and it turned out terrible.

Well, this is a simple example, with a lot of possibilities. Meister wraps all build output in HTML and pushes to a web server. I’d like to include a shortened URL for that in the update. Currently we don’t have anything outside of a firewall, maybe I’ll try Yammer for that.

If you have any other suggestions, let me know. @seanblanton

There has been some talk around using physical, colored, lamps to notify build results (pragmatic automation, Carlos Sanchez, Richard Durnall, Alberto Savoia).

The idea comes from Lean Manufacturing principles developed by Toyota applied to software development. An “andon” paper lamp was a way to let other workers know there was a problem on the assembly line. The idea for builds is that while a build is running, an amber light flashes, letting other developers know not to run a build, a green light signifies the last build was completed successfully, and a red light means the build is broken and needs to be fixed.

While I’m sure it is an entertaining exercise to set this up, some simple software automation could achieve the same results, and it has obvious faults, like what if I am working from home?

Email is the de facto standard for build notification. There is a hardcoded mailing list somewhere and you get the email, even if you don’t want it, and you have to go and check your mail to receive it.

Twitter, on the other hand, puts the user in control of the notifications in true Web 2.0 fashion. Tweets are also ideal for receiving notifications via cell phone, where email is generally not. Consider the following cases:

• I can follow the build when I want, and unfollow when I want. No going to an admin to remove me from the list.
• I can turn on device updates so I get an SMS message about the result (maybe an important release is coming up), or I can turn off device updates, say, when I’m on vacation.
• I can retweet (forward) the build notification.
• You can put links in the message. Meister uploads all build logs in HTML format to a web server and we would include the link to that.

About a year ago, I used Meister with a post-build activity to Tweet the build result after a build. The activity was a simple Perl script using Net::Twitter. Let’s just say this experiment sort of fell on deaf ears.

Now I’m ready to roll with this again and you can follow my progress. I had created a Twitter account, @builds, for this purpose. In a day or two, you’ll see some tweets from that guy from one of my builds.

I’m interested in what other people have to say. Meister already uses Eclipse RCP as it’s front end, but most other build tools are still command-line and in the 1970’s. Let’s bring build management tools into the 21st century with Web 2.0 features.

In the Agile Scrum framework, a ScrumBut is a “reason why [you] can’t take full advantage of Scrum to solve the problems and realize the benefits.” Clearly, build problems are traditionally one of the biggest ScrumButs. Meister removes the scrum butt by taking variables out of the hands of operators managing the builds.

Ask for a build and get a build. Ask for continuous integration and test automation and coalescence and get it with Meister. Product owners should not be losing cycles to debugging builds, tweaking parameters to get different types of builds or in resolving confusion about what did or did not happen in a build or continuous integration workflow.

The client-server architecture and highly reusable build and workflow metadata extend the ScrumBut elimination to all developer machines and continuous integration build servers, creating a highly consistent build. Team members working on these different machines know exactly what to expect.

Since they know what to expect from the build, they can focus on resolving actual integration issues and testing rather than trying to make the build work in a consistent manner.

With our third nomination, we won the Jolt Award for product excellences in the change and configuration management category. You can view the announcement here.

While we have managed Jboss and WebSphere deployments using Meister and Mojo and we frequently manage resources for different target server environments through build, here is a company that focuses on both of those things.

I posted a comment about the reluctance of script writers to give up their scripting on their blog here.

It is just plain fun to run parallel workflows and builds and watch the activities and build steps light up the workflow monitor in real time like a Christmas tree. See this flash demo to see what I mean.

As customers go to machines with more and more cores, fewer machines are needed in the application lifecycle infrastructure, particularly for builds and code retrievals - the most resource intensive functions. This is helping to simplify the infrastructure, reduce maintenance and administration and drive down costs.

Several of our customers are running around 5000 builds and non-build workflows per month on two machines. The primary reason for two machines, in fact, is for disaster recovery, and the goal is to run both machines at less than half capacity so that in the event that one machine (or datacenter) fails, all the current capacity can be run as a contingency on the one machine that’s left.

Thread control is very simple with Meister and Mojo. Both use the omsubmit dependency manager program to handle this. Meister’s om program translates build events into workflow steps using omsubmit. The OMSUBMIT_MAX_USER_PROC value sets the maximum allowed number of threads.

You might think that if you are running dual, quad-core build machines that you should set the max threads at 8. However, Meister posts build operations to one thread and the associated logging operation to another. Compile operations notoriously use a lot of memory and CPU resources, but the logging operation posts to a server and waits for the operation to complete. There is really no disadvantage to setting the max threads higher than 16 in this case, so go ahead and do it.

As a non-build workflow example, I worked on JBoss deployments to 48 Linux machines. The workflow was parallelized into 48 activities each of which deployed to a single machine in parallel. The deployment activity was largely a remote execute operation that extracted archives on the remote machine. The extraction took about a second for a medium sized application. Again, this is a waiting situation where machine resources are essentially idle while the thread is in use, so use more threads. The machine was a dual, dual-core build machine and we set OMSUBMIT_MAX_USER_PROC to 50.

Watching the workflow monitor as the deployment ran, we could see roughly half of the machines light up (meaning actively running) at any one time and the entire deployment process synchronized all 48 machines in a little over two seconds.

So, don’t simply match your machine’s CPU threading capabilities - overclock! Aim high for max threads and try to determine where your performance is optimized. I’d love to provide you with some metrics as a function of thread count, but usually once something is working it’s on to the next project. I barely have enough time to blog!

It’s very common to have a code check-out step be part of an integration build. Far better it is to not check out code before a build. What? How is that possible?

Let me explain, Fred. The simple approach most of us take (and have to take when getting things started) has developers commit, commit, commit, and when it is time to deploy, check out the code, do a build, and then deploy the application. There is room here for both problems and optimizations. Doing a full check out of the code tree is more costly in terms of time than checking out only what has changed. Updating the code tree with a single commit is less costly than updating with a large number of commits.

You may be limited by the technology in-hand and how much you’ve invested in learning the technology and possibly customizing it. For example, if your file control tool can only do a full check out of a source tree, or that’s the only command you had time to implement in order to meet the deadline, or you don’t trust your tool to do incremental updates, then you are basically running the longest builds possible.

On the other hand, if you could update the code tree every time a developer does a commit with only the changed files, then you are ready to execute a build at any moment. This requires some deft manipulation of your file control tool, and that’s why you don’t see it more often.

You might think “continuous integration” will take care of this. Developer commits, update checked out, build is run. However, you may end up with a build, test execution and deployment that takes longer than the typical time between developer commits. You still have to do incremental updates and it only solves the problem in cases with very low developer activity.

I’d like to point out one tool that does an excellent job of post-commit code checkout, CA Software Change Manager for Distributed. CA SCM (for short) is the tool, formerly known as Harvest, from the company formerly known as Computer Associates. CA SCM is a highly scalable (1000’s of developers) file control tool with a great lifecycle process model. We at OpenMake Software still have our very first customer still using OpenMake/Meister with CA Harvest/SCM after 11 years. While we have a reseller arrangement with CA, our partnership with CA in services has extended to 14 years.

About 10 years ago, OpenMake Software developed an integration with the then, Platinum Technologies’ Harvest product, modeled after the now dead Computer Associates product, Endevor Workstation, that had an excellent post-action code tree update. (Endevor for z/OS, a.k.a CA SCM for Z/OS is still very popular and has a similar functionality called ‘output libraries’ - following all this?) Our integration had the horrific name, ‘Har-refresh’.

As product partners, we finally transitioned Har-refresh from an external add-on to CA who have turned it into a core functionality of the product, called Hrefresh (a better name.) Rather than simply a post-commit check out, HRefresh updates the code tree after any action that updates a dynamic code view. This includes, renames, deletions, commits and code promotions and demotions. We like this because CA SCM does all the work and we cherry-pick sets of up-to-date code trees to build up an application source code stack for a build. We align Meister dependency directories with HRefresh-managed file system directories for a tight SCM (software configuration management) build.

This mechanism distributes the resource load for checking out code to times when builds are not required. It’s true that often times people want to build as soon as their code is checked in (or promoted), but on average it is a very big net win reducing build times.

This is just an example of the type of sophistication that is out there to prevent pre-build code check outs and save time on your builds.

One of OpenMake Software’s product strategies is to keep things simple. Build management is one of the most complex operations in all of the IT world, and one of our key benefits is to simplify, organize and automate the build process for development, testing and production.

We’ve seen a trend among our customers to simplify their build management infrastructure by going to fewer build machines with more CPU cores. Builds in particular use relatively more CPU resources than other resources as code is interpreted and compiled in memory and then finally written to disk. By reducing the total number of machines, rack space, procurement, administration and other IT overhead costs are reduced at great cost savings per machine eliminated.

Recently, I was at one of the big chip makers where they used dual quad-core CPU Linux machines for their development and builds. They had two machines and were able to control access to allow separate areas for development, testing and release builds in keeping with best practices. Having all the horsepower of 8 CPU cores on a single machine kept them from needing more machines.

Another customer does 6000 builds per month with Meister on just two build machines.

IBM, when selling BuildForge, likes to talk about big build server farms, because their tool does remote execution on multiple machines, as does Meister. However, BuildForge does not do builds at all. It can remotely execute your existing build scripts, but there is little real value add to that. BuildForge is also famously expensive. What happens over the next few years to the high investment in multi-machine remote execution software as the number of machines declines, perhaps dramatically?

A similar argument can be for Electric Cloud’s Electric Accelerator product. It’s possible in some cases, for C/C++ builds to gain an edge by pushing a compile operation to another machine, and then bringing it back. You would only do this to gain access to additional CPU resources. In the past, you might have 8 build machines that Electric Accelerator would farm operations out to. Now, you can pull all those operations into a single machine and there is no need for that functionality. Also, you are stuck with converting your GNU makefiles into other GNU makefiles.

Meister is optimized for multi-core CPU build machines and offers multi-threaded capability to both build events and non-build workflow events. You know where your build is and there are fewer dependencies on network resources. Both BuildForge and Electric Accelerator add additional overhead to build administration to coordinate across multiple machines - a dying practice, that no organization wants to invest in. Meister is the best bet for a future with fewer build machines with more horsepower.

I’ve recently been learning the Ruby on Rails framework for web development. It’s become a quite popular framework for getting database connected websites up and running relatively quickly. One way it is easier to get a site started than with other frameworks is because of the Convention over Configuration mantra that it lives by. Instead of requiring loads of configuration files to build a basic site (that can grow and become quite complex by the way) it has a feature called scaffolding which automatically builds your Model, View and Controller classes based on tables it finds in the database. It can do this by making assumptions based on standard conventions about interacting with a database from a website and naming and using classes in a standard way.

Although I am still a rookie when it comes to understanding the many facets of Ruby on Rails, I have really been trying to emulate the Convention over Configuration way of doing things in my various build/release projects at customer sites. One problem I inevitably encounter in most organizations is that the development of build and release methodologies has been left to the various development teams and not been thought about holistically using a centrally managed approach - this leads to little to no standards and Convention over Configuration is chucked aside. Not only is this inefficient from an organizational standpoint - why reinvent the wheel over and over again for each team when they are essentially tackling the same sets of problems, but it also makes for a nightmarish audit trail that could get you into trouble.

One reason this happens so frequently is that the managers that are supposed to be in charge of standards for building and releasing applications are often not privy to the kind of technical requirements that the various development units have when it comes to putting together and delivering their applications. And when developers try to explain the requirements, the standards people may get lost because they can’t possibly understand the nuts and bolts of every application.

To pull off real centralized management of builds and deployments, the standards people need to take a deep breath and rethink their objectives - start looking for the commonalities, not the differences between applications. In doing this, they will find that that problem that that developer told you was so unique and must be solved a certain way is probably very similar to the problem the other developer told you about last week - or just look on the web and see how many thousands of external developers have this same “unique” problem. It turns out that most applications can be constructed in the same type of way. Just because the source files are different between applications doesn’t mean that the paths they take to their target executable, dll, Jar, War or Ear file is very different at all. And when those paths are essentially the same - create a reusable process that the various teams can share. Use Convention over Configuration as your guide - standardize and centralize the common processes and externalize the technical specifications using highly modularized control files.

Here’s a simple task for you to try. This assumes all of your application teams have their code checked into a central repository - if not, you have bigger problems than standardizing builds and releases and should address those first. Look at your various technologies, whether it’s .Net, Java or some other and try to identify where the code tree’s start under the root of the project. You’d be amazed at how many teams check their .Net solutions into different levels of a code tree for no good reason, or Java teams that have their their source packages buried some place in the code tree. Next, look for the common root starting point for all these application types and try to come up with a simple standard based on this information. Finally, notify those that are not following that standard that you would like to move their code up and over to this new location (its usually up and not down) - it should actually be pretty easy to do. After this has been done, you can now have all build and deploy scripts use a standard root variable to find dependencies (think something like SOURCE_ROOT).

It always amazes me how many teams don’t standardize simple things like code tree start points in their source projects - it equally amazes me how much mileage you can get just out of making simple path standardization adjustments. After you’ve worked on the source tree, try doing the same with your common libraries. This isn’t rocket science - just remember, Convention over Configuration makes everything easier.

Adam

As one who has done many version control tool A to version control tool B conversions, I know how difficult such a task is. That’s why I am all the more impressed that 20+ years of Perl history from multiple repositories have been converted to a single Git repository.

I can’t add much more about the benefits than the announcement itself:

http://use.perl.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/22/0830205

We’ve been testing Mojo and Meister 7.2.1 and getting ready for their release on December 15. This is a maintenance release with bug fixes from users who’ve started running builds and workflows with Meister 7.2 and using the free workflow automation of Mojo and putting those releases through their paces. It also contains a lot of UI and documentation improvements.

Existing users of the 7.2 version of either Mojo or Meister will be able to upgrade via the update sites, http://www.openmakesoftware.com/mojo/update_site and http://www.openmakesoftware.com/meister/update_site, respectively.

Users interested in getting Mojo, the free workflow automation tool, and Meister, the industry leading build automation tool, can find download instructions on our website, http:///www.openmakesoftware.com.

We’ve got a couple of things going on in the next two weeks. Quinn and Dan and I were at a rousing TechCocktail Chicago event last week and met a lot of new people as well as some old friends.

Chicago Rational User Group - Presentation on IBM’s Jazz. This is at TransUnion, 555 W Adams, Wed Nov 12. Quinn Bailey will be attending this one, starts at 5pm. Registration at: https://secure.rational-ug.org/check_user.php?type=meeting&meetid=873

WindyCity.pm Perl User Group. At the Google offices, Mon, Nov 17. Topic: http://www.frdcsa.org/ . Registration is usually via a Google Doc form - not available yet. Yours truly will be attending this one.

Eclipse Demo Camp hosted by OpenMake Software. At one of our favorite restaurant/bars, The Kerryman, 70 W. Erie St., Nov 19, 6pm. Yours truly will demo “Desktop Workflow Automation in Eclipse with Mojo Plug-Ins”. Free beer - need another reason?

I found myself actually using four different file control tool plug-ins in a single Eclipse 3.4 workspace. This is not show-off, but for legitimate needs. Before proceeding, let me disclaim that I am reorganizing my Perl development on a new machine and I have everything somewhat haphazardly in a single workspace. Ideally I will have different workspaces for different projects, but until I build a standard set of preference, particularly for EPIC Perl templates, and, I can export and import them into different workspaces, I’m locked into a single workspace for now.

If you are not familiar with Eclipse and version control (or as I call it generically “file control”) you have to install plug-ins that provide the functionality to interface with different tools. I have an EPIC plug-in that provides Perl tools, and I’ve installed EGIT for Git integration and plug-ins for Subversion and Bazaar. The CVS plug-in actually comes as part of the base Eclipse install, though that status is questionable given the popularity of Subversion and the rapid rise of Git.

These plug-ins provide the capability to create a new project from the contents of the file control repository, or attach an existing Eclipse project to a new project under file control. You do this by right-clicking on the project and going to the “Team” menu and the “Share” item.Here is a quick explanation of the screen shot above. “om64Perl” comes out of our OpenMake CVS repository. The ones attached to Git, are pretty obvious with the word “Git” clearly to the right of the project name. Being a distributed repository tool, the Git repository that the projects are attached to is actually in the workspace. Then, I have an anemic open source project on SourceForge to which the “PerlSCM” project is attached via Subversion. And, finally, there is the Perl VCI project “vci” that uses Bazaar.

There you go. Because I’m involved with three open source projects that use different file control tools, and regular work that uses another, I end up with four.

Openmake has made available a new build method for CapeClear ESB WSAR builds.   The  CapeClear Web Services builds can now be automated using this reusable build method.

Perl offers various ways to share/reuse code.  When enhancing perl code/modules used in multiple applications and/or parallel releases, it is important to ensure that we get an early warning if the change made is not backward compatible and if there is a potential for the existing applications to break.  With “use” we would know if a reference is made to an unavailable module at compile time itself.  However, there are cases, when we need to be backward compatible and allow the existing applications that share code to function seamlessly.  Using “require” instead of “use” has come in handy to ensure that the existing applications continue to work and at the same time allow the new releases to use the new functionality.  This is because “require” is more dynamic and loads the modules at run time when needed and not at compile time unlike “use”. 

Perhaps you’ve heard of “glue” scripting, which is scripting designed to pull together various tools and processes into an integrated process automation.For example, suppose you have both ClearQuest from IBM and CA Harvest. Neither IBM nor CA have a real stake in integrating with the competitor’s tool, but you do. So what do you do? You create some nifty Perl scripts (because there are no other real scripting languages) to associate Harvest package promotion with ClearQuest record changes.

Well, we in OM Services have become sort of a people form of the same thing. We’ve had multiple engagements with the same companies, providing a consistent level of expertise and proprietary knowledge of each company’s software processes and automation technology.

Sometimes we even smooth out transitions from staff turnover and that’s where I think we act as “glue” in time. OK, so I have a physics background and can’t distinguish between time and space, but providing connectivity between two points is sort of what we do.

The goals of an SCM team charged with build management is to NOT have proprietary knowledge outside the team, but well, that can be expensive and sometimes impossible even when the funds are there. So, while we strive to meet the needs of our customers through services, we think the tool should provide that bridge, keeping the proprietary knowledge in house, and we in services are constantly feeding back our input into product development to achieve that goal.

We’ve heard from a number of companies that they are having problems with their WebSphere Eclipse headless builds and they are looking to us for a solution.

A headless build is an Eclipse function (and therefore an IBM WSAD/RAD IDE function) that allows you to execute Eclipse and some of it’s plug-ins at the command line. The GUI does not launch, but the main machinery does, and it makes use of the workspace metadata.

In theory this allows you to do the same build at the command line that was done in the GUI. It’s a nice theory that we subscribe to ourselves.

In practice, these companies do not feel they are successful for a number of reasons:

1. If it works it is slow. A slow build is almost as bad as a broken build.
2. Unexplained crashes in the middle of the build due to workspace corruption.
3. Crashes may leave the .lock file in the .metadata folder of the workspace. This prevents Eclipse from executing in the same location until it is cleaned up.
4. It’s a black-box build with a large number of operation swept

Meister takes a different approach and records the files and project types and then applies a traditional build with a mixture of Ant tasks and command line calls. This eliminates the need to even install RAD 7 on the build server, but you still need the runtime libraries.

I’ve worked with the IBM WebSphere EJBDeploy plug-ins and integrated Meister to actually call an Eclipse headless build via the WSAD/RAD ejbdeploy.bat file. As a rule, we always stick with the vendor-recommended approach, so we don’t have a choice. However, we don’t do the compiling and archive this way - just the EJBDeploy step.

By compiling and archiving the Java parts in a traditional way, we at least minimize the risk of a broken headless build and maximize the speed. And, yes the ejbdeploy step is usually the longest step in the build. The fact that IBM supplies the ejbdeploy.bat file at all, which mimics a command-line compiler, means we’re not the only ones taking this approach.