Has anyone used the new .war deployment available with 6.1? We are trying to use it as it eliminates a bunch of headaches in deploying applications here at the Stanford Medical Department.
I've run into a few funny things though and I'm wondering if anyone else has too. In the wiki there is no mention of this but it seems that one loses the ability to stop or restart Servoy server in the servoy-admin pages. At least in our case (6.1.2 on a Linux server), those buttons don't show up. Plus the whole file structure on the server is different so I'm not sure one can run the standard ./servoy_server.sh file to start the server. As I understand from our Linux guy here the other way to 'restart' an application from a .war file is just to 'touch' that .war file and that should force a restart. However we are running into problems trying to do that. I've had it down for a day and half trying to figure out how to get it going again. It seems maybe that the RMI port from the first start might still be left open - does that seem possible? These are the error messages in the servoy_log.txt file:
First one (only on launch):
2012-11-12 14:31:02,037 ERROR [2 way Server Acceptor] com.servoy.j2db.util.Debug - ServerTwoWaySocket accept failure [ ] java.net.SocketException: Socket closed
Then these next two keep on repeating. After the first bit they seem to repeat every half an hour or so...
2012-11-12 14:31:07,321 ERROR [ContainerBackgroundProcessor[StandardEngine[Catalina]]] com.servoy.j2db.util.Debug - couldnt instantiatie the rmi socketfactory [ ] java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
.
.
Caused by: java.net.SocketException: factory already defined at java.rmi.server.RMISocketFactory.setSocketFactory(RMISocketFactory.java:94)
at com.servoy.j2db.rmi.DefaultServerRMIServerSocketFactoryFactory.<init>(DefaultServerRMIServerSocketFactoryFactory.java:69)
... 27 more
2012-11-12 14:44:41,288 ERROR [TP-Processor12] com.servoy.j2db.util.Debug - Could not register MBean [ ] javax.management.InstanceAlreadyExistsException: com.servoy.datasource:type=repository_server
Anyone have any success with this? In general I think it is a cool way to deploy but right now this is causing a big headache here.
Thanks,
John