adfemg
  1. adfemg
  2. ADFEMG-112

ER 12834041 : ADF RUNTIME LIBRARIES DON'T SHOW THE CORRECT VERSION NUMBERS IN WLS CONFIG.XML

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      hi

      Recently I came across enhancement request 12834041, "ADF RUNTIME LIBRARIES DON'T SHOW THE CORRECT VERSION NUMBERS IN WLS CONFIG.XML".

      Its description includes "Insure the version of the Java Required Files (JRF) and ADF Runtime Libraries (ADR) installed in the WebLogic Server are correct.".

      It seems to be related to some feedback I posted on the OTN forum on a similar question
      at https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=10697465#10697465 :

      hi Filip

      Filip Huysmans wrote:
      ... how can you see what version of the JRF libraries are used? ...

      The approach in the blog post "How to find the version of ADF libraries installed on WLS 11g" searches the contents of some JAR file.
      A disadvantage could be that a wrong JAR file is searched (of a different installation for which the files are on the same file system) and also that you would need access to the file system where these JAR files are (which might not always be trivial).
      Where "wrong JAR" refers to the difference between "installed" (as in the blog post) and "used" (as in your question).

      To see what you really have available at run-time, an alternative approach could be to deploy ADFLibrariesVersionsApp.ear [1] and review the response you get from URLs like these:

      • /alvweb/manifestinfo?class-name=oracle.adf.share.ADFContext :
        - class name = oracle.adf.share.ADFContext
        - class URL = jar:file:/D:/oracle/jdevstudio111160-mw/oracle_common/modules/oracle.adf.share.ca_11.1.1/adf-share-ca.jar!/oracle/adf/share/ADFContext.class
        - manifest URL = jar:file:/D:/oracle/jdevstudio111160-mw/oracle_common/modules/oracle.adf.share.ca_11.1.1/adf-share-ca.jar!/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
        - manifest main attributes:
        Oracle-BuildSystem: Linux - java - 1.6.0_24-b50
        Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.7.0RC1
        Oracle-Version: 11.1.1.6.38.61.92
        Manifest-Version: 1.0
        Created-By: 19.1-b02 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
        Oracle-Builder: Official Builder
        Oracle-Label: JDEVADF_11.1.1.6.0_GENERIC_111205.1733.6192.1
        Oracle-BuildTimestamp: 2011-12-12 04:34:42 -0800
        
      • /alvweb/manifestinfo?class-name=oracle.jbo.ApplicationModule :
        - class name = oracle.jbo.ApplicationModule
        - class URL = zip:D:/oracle/jdevstudio111160-mw/user_projects/domains/mystuffdomain/servers/AdminServer/tmp/_WL_user/adf.oracle.domain/iox4ii/APP-INF/lib/adfm.jar!/oracle/jbo/ApplicationModule.class
        - manifest URL = zip:D:/oracle/jdevstudio111160-mw/user_projects/domains/mystuffdomain/servers/AdminServer/tmp/_WL_user/adf.oracle.domain/iox4ii/APP-INF/lib/adfm.jar!/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
        - manifest main attributes:
        Oracle-BuildSystem: Linux - java - 1.6.0_24-b50
        Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.7.0RC1
        Oracle-Version: 11.1.1.6.38.61.92
        Manifest-Version: 1.0
        Created-By: 19.1-b02 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
        Oracle-Builder: Official Builder
        Oracle-Label: JDEVADF_11.1.1.6.0_GENERIC_111205.1733.6192.1
        Oracle-BuildTimestamp: 2011-12-12 05:40:15 -0800
        

        or on a different domain

      • /alvweb/manifestinfo?class-name=oracle.adf.share.ADFContext :
        - class name = oracle.adf.share.ADFContext
        - class URL = jar:file:/C:/oracle/jdevstudio111230-mw/oracle_common/modules/oracle.adf.share.ca_11.1.1/adf-share-ca.jar!/oracle/adf/share/ADFContext.class
        - manifest URL = jar:file:/C:/oracle/jdevstudio111230-mw/oracle_common/modules/oracle.adf.share.ca_11.1.1/adf-share-ca.jar!/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
        - manifest main attributes:
        Oracle-BuildSystem: Linux - java - 1.6.0_21-b51
        Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.7.0RC1
        Oracle-Version: 11.1.2.3.39.62.76.1
        Manifest-Version: 1.0
        Created-By: 17.0-b17 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
        Oracle-Builder: Official Builder
        Oracle-Label: JDEVADF_11.1.2.3.0_GENERIC_120914.0223.6276.1
        Oracle-BuildTimestamp: 2012-09-18 08:00:12 -0700
        
      • /alvweb/manifestinfo?class-name=oracle.jbo.ApplicationModule :
        - class name = oracle.jbo.ApplicationModule
        - class URL = zip:C:/oracle/jdevstudio111230-mw/user_projects/domains/mystuffdomain/servers/AdminServer/tmp/_WL_user/adf.oracle.domain/iox4ii/APP-INF/lib/adfm.jar!/oracle/jbo/ApplicationModule.class
        - manifest URL = zip:C:/oracle/jdevstudio111230-mw/user_projects/domains/mystuffdomain/servers/AdminServer/tmp/_WL_user/adf.oracle.domain/iox4ii/APP-INF/lib/adfm.jar!/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
        - manifest main attributes:
        Oracle-BuildSystem: Linux - java - 1.6.0_21-b51
        Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.7.0RC1
        Oracle-Version: 11.1.2.3.39.62.76.1
        Manifest-Version: 1.0
        Created-By: 17.0-b17 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
        Oracle-Builder: Official Builder
        Oracle-Label: JDEVADF_11.1.2.3.0_GENERIC_120914.0223.6276.1
        Oracle-BuildTimestamp: 2012-09-18 08:13:05 -0700
        

        -[1] at ADFLibrariesVersionsApp/deploy/ADFLibrariesVersionsApp.ear
        in http://www.consideringred.com/files/oracle/2012/ADFLibrariesVersionsApp-v0.01.zip

      success
      Jan Vervecken

      I wonder if the recent unpublished updates in ER 12834041 (which has "Created Aug 4, 2011") already give a hint to if and how this can/will be improved in the future.

      many thanks
      Jan Vervecken

        Activity

        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment - - edited

        "...already give a hint to if and how this can/will be improved in the future."

        No, the update is development asking for more information. While I can't guarantee development
        will consider your opinion, there's no harm in this specific case letting you know what their questions are and
        me supplying your answers back.

        As such if you'd like the opportunity to throw in your opinion, here's an exert from the ER (sorry about the formatting):

        @ The ER describes 3 issues - Can you clarify some Qs
        @ about each so we can try to see if we can automate a solution in the S/W?
        @ 1) ADF Runtime Libraries were not installed - How do customers deploy the app
        @ 1a) Create an AppServer Conn, then deploy the JDev workspace to Standalone
        @ app Server
        @ 1b) Create an EAR and publish to Standalone app Server admin to deploy
        @ The reason I ask is the answer of 1a or 1b or 1a+1b equally will help us
        @ prioritize whether we can try to identify whether an ADF app is being
        @ deployed to an env with no ADF runtime and warn the Deployer.
        @ .
        @ 2) or the ADF Runtime Libraries were installed, but from an incorrect
        @ version,
        @ .
        @ We recommend that ADF apps refer to ADF Shared Libraries by name only e.g. in
        @ weblogic-application.xml with no explicit versions. Are you seeing customers
        @ adding versions manually or JDev DT adding it? If the latter please specify
        @ what version of JDev have your observed this in?
        @ .
        @ <library-ref>
        @ <library-name>adf.oracle.domain</library-name>
        @ </library-ref>
        @ .
        @ 3) or the application is deployed in a Managed Server that was not
        @ targeted with the ADF Runtime libraries
        @ .
        @ Same Q as (1).

        CM.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - - edited "...already give a hint to if and how this can/will be improved in the future." No, the update is development asking for more information. While I can't guarantee development will consider your opinion, there's no harm in this specific case letting you know what their questions are and me supplying your answers back. As such if you'd like the opportunity to throw in your opinion, here's an exert from the ER (sorry about the formatting): @ The ER describes 3 issues - Can you clarify some Qs @ about each so we can try to see if we can automate a solution in the S/W? @ 1) ADF Runtime Libraries were not installed - How do customers deploy the app @ 1a) Create an AppServer Conn, then deploy the JDev workspace to Standalone @ app Server @ 1b) Create an EAR and publish to Standalone app Server admin to deploy @ The reason I ask is the answer of 1a or 1b or 1a+1b equally will help us @ prioritize whether we can try to identify whether an ADF app is being @ deployed to an env with no ADF runtime and warn the Deployer. @ . @ 2) or the ADF Runtime Libraries were installed, but from an incorrect @ version, @ . @ We recommend that ADF apps refer to ADF Shared Libraries by name only e.g. in @ weblogic-application.xml with no explicit versions. Are you seeing customers @ adding versions manually or JDev DT adding it? If the latter please specify @ what version of JDev have your observed this in? @ . @ <library-ref> @ <library-name>adf.oracle.domain</library-name> @ </library-ref> @ . @ 3) or the application is deployed in a Managed Server that was not @ targeted with the ADF Runtime libraries @ . @ Same Q as (1). CM.
        Hide
        Jan Vervecken added a comment -

        Thank you for the update Chris.

        Indeed, that does not read like a hint to if and how this can/will be improved in the future, but more like the requested enhancement is not understood by the person writing this feedback.

        For example "... whether we can try to identify whether an ADF app is being deployed to an env with no ADF runtime and warn the Deployer ...", but I don't see this enhancement request asking to warn the deployer.

        Also given the recommendation "... that ADF apps refer to ADF Shared Libraries by name only e.g. in weblogic-application.xml with no explicit versions ...", I wonder how WebLogic Server and/or deploy tools will be able to determine a version mismatch (to warn the deployer).

        If I understand the enhancement request, it is about being able to determine the exact version of the ADF run-time libraries.
        Current WebLogic Server features, like the deployments page in the console, are too inexact.

        See also the "Business desirablity" in ER 12834041 saying
        "Support engineers will directly be able to pinpoint problems with mismatch of ADF versions.
        Currently, the only way to check it is by reading the Manifest files from the JAR files."

        For example, both for JDeveloper 11.1.1.5.0 and 11.1.1.6.0 the integrated WebLogic Server deployments page in the console shows "adf.oracle.domain(1.0,11.1.1.2.0)",
        which seems to match their config.xml file, both having :

          <library>
            <name>adf.oracle.domain#1.0@11.1.1.2.0</name>
            <target>DefaultServer</target>
        ...
          </library>
        

        But, using ADFLibrariesVersionsApp.ear [1]

        using JDeveloper 11.1.1.5.0 the URL /alvweb/manifestinfo?class-name=oracle.jbo.ApplicationModule
        returns "... Oracle-Version: 11.1.1.5.37.60.13 ..."

        using JDeveloper 11.1.1.6.0 the URL /alvweb/manifestinfo?class-name=oracle.jbo.ApplicationModule
        returns "... Oracle-Version: 11.1.1.6.38.61.92 ..."

        regards
        Jan Vervecken

        Show
        Jan Vervecken added a comment - Thank you for the update Chris. Indeed, that does not read like a hint to if and how this can/will be improved in the future, but more like the requested enhancement is not understood by the person writing this feedback. For example "... whether we can try to identify whether an ADF app is being deployed to an env with no ADF runtime and warn the Deployer ...", but I don't see this enhancement request asking to warn the deployer. Also given the recommendation "... that ADF apps refer to ADF Shared Libraries by name only e.g. in weblogic-application.xml with no explicit versions ...", I wonder how WebLogic Server and/or deploy tools will be able to determine a version mismatch (to warn the deployer). If I understand the enhancement request, it is about being able to determine the exact version of the ADF run-time libraries. Current WebLogic Server features, like the deployments page in the console, are too inexact. See also the "Business desirablity" in ER 12834041 saying "Support engineers will directly be able to pinpoint problems with mismatch of ADF versions. Currently, the only way to check it is by reading the Manifest files from the JAR files." For example, both for JDeveloper 11.1.1.5.0 and 11.1.1.6.0 the integrated WebLogic Server deployments page in the console shows "adf.oracle.domain(1.0,11.1.1.2.0)", which seems to match their config.xml file, both having : <library> <name>adf.oracle.domain#1.0@11.1.1.2.0</name> <target>DefaultServer</target> ... </library> But, using ADFLibrariesVersionsApp.ear [1] using JDeveloper 11.1.1.5.0 the URL /alvweb/manifestinfo?class-name=oracle.jbo.ApplicationModule returns "... Oracle-Version: 11.1.1.5.37.60.13 ..." using JDeveloper 11.1.1.6.0 the URL /alvweb/manifestinfo?class-name=oracle.jbo.ApplicationModule returns "... Oracle-Version: 11.1.1.6.38.61.92 ..." [1] at ADFLibrariesVersionsApp/deploy/ADFLibrariesVersionsApp.ear in http://www.consideringred.com/files/oracle/2012/ADFLibrariesVersionsApp-v0.01.zip regards Jan Vervecken
        Hide
        Jan Vervecken added a comment -

        fyi

        Today I also found a related blog post by Timo Hahn, "ADF: How to find out which ADF version is installed on a manged WebLogic server"
        at http://tompeez.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/adf-how-to-find-out-which-adf-version-is-installed-on-a-manged-weblogic-server/

        regards
        Jan Vervecken

        Show
        Jan Vervecken added a comment - fyi Today I also found a related blog post by Timo Hahn, "ADF: How to find out which ADF version is installed on a manged WebLogic server" at http://tompeez.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/adf-how-to-find-out-which-adf-version-is-installed-on-a-manged-weblogic-server/ regards Jan Vervecken
        Hide
        Jan Vervecken added a comment -

        hi Chris

        The enhancement request 12834041 currently has "Status 20 - To Requestor, Need More Info" without publishing details in the most recent comments.

        So (with or without my earlier feedback) where is this ER 12834041 going?

        thanks
        Jan Vervecken

        Show
        Jan Vervecken added a comment - hi Chris The enhancement request 12834041 currently has "Status 20 - To Requestor, Need More Info" without publishing details in the most recent comments. So (with or without my earlier feedback) where is this ER 12834041 going? thanks Jan Vervecken
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        ER has been redirected to another staff member on advice from another staff member.

        CM.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - ER has been redirected to another staff member on advice from another staff member. CM.
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        Asked for update internally given no progress.

        CM.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - Asked for update internally given no progress. CM.
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        I simply cannot get this bug to budge after numerous (ignored) emails internally. Only thing I can suggest Jan is to lodge an SR to see if we can give it a kick start that way.

        At this stage I'm going to mark this issue as "Won't fix" so I don't scan it on the next walk through of the EMG issues. However if you do get any progress from an SR please reopen this issue.

        CM.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - I simply cannot get this bug to budge after numerous (ignored) emails internally. Only thing I can suggest Jan is to lodge an SR to see if we can give it a kick start that way. At this stage I'm going to mark this issue as "Won't fix" so I don't scan it on the next walk through of the EMG issues. However if you do get any progress from an SR please reopen this issue. CM.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Jan Vervecken
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: