axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chamikara Jayalath <chamikar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Supporting permanent storage based reliability
Date Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:23:30 GMT
Hi,

Yes. Thats why we try to inspect messages that go for RM enabled services
and save them only. We can do this by inspecting the SOAP headers.

Chamikara


On 12/9/05, Deepal Jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Chamikara
>
> If you are going to save everything in the first place it will slow down
> the system , all our OM stuff wont be useless if we are going to do so. If
> and only if we want to save the message we do that , so I do not mind when
> RM is turn on particular service then all the message come to that service
> save some where , not other messages.
>
> I think we need to take this issue into Aixs2 mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
>  Deepal
> ................................................................
> ~Future is Open~
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Chamikara Jayalath <chamikaramj@gmail.com>
> *To:* Jaliya Ekanayaka <jaliya@opensource.lk> ; sandesha-dev@ws.apache.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:21 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Supporting permanent storage based reliability
>
> Hi Jaliya,All,
>
> hmm. Very Good point.
> We can easily put a handler that does this (lets call this RMPersister).
> It seems like this has to be the very first handler of the inFlow. But since
> we are after the transport level we will have to save any changes that
> happened there. At a glance it seems like we should save following
>
> SOAPEnvelope -> We can easily save this in a database.
> Transport Information -> We have to save the name of in and out
> transports. And transport header
>                                     information.
>
>
> If we try to save every message this could greatly reduce the performance.
> So we could try to detect the messages that go towards RM enabled services.
> We could identify them by inspecting the SOAP envelope.
>
> But When security is present and messages come in an encrypted form a
> major problem could arise. We cannot inspect messages without decrypting
> them. So the security handler has to be present before the RMPersister
> handler. But if Security IN Handler edit the SOAP envelope, it could get
> confused when we re-inject message when recovering. But if we have  the
> original SOAP Envelope available (without decrypting), we can inject that.
> But we need some help from the security guys  :)
>
> Thanx,
> Chamikara
>
>
>
> On 12/8/05, jaliya@opensource.lk <jaliya@opensource.lk> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chamikara and all
> >
> > I was thinking this sometimes back and had this kind of idea. Need to
> > clarify regarding the feasibility with other modules.
> > If we need to provide failure safe RM then we need to store messages.
> > So if we store them just after the transport level with some id then in
> > a
> > crash, RM can make that message to inject into axis2 engine at the
> > module
> > initialization method. (That is why we add the module init method in the
> >
> > initial design of Axis2)
> > Since we store messages before they get processed, we do not want to
> > store
> > the context information( assume that RM store everything in a DB)
> >
> > Please comment.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jaliya
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Chamikara Jayalath
> > To: sandesha-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 6:23 AM
> > Subject: Supporting permanent storage based reliability
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to implement failure safe reliability for Sandesha2. The idea
> > is to allow a Axis2+Sadesha2 system to continue a reliable message
> > sequence even after a failure (may be due to a sudden shutdown of
> > Sandesha2, or may be due to power failure). Since Sandesha2 itself is
> > going to be based on a database, it can protect its state from a crash.
> >
> > However protecting the state of Axis2 system is a problem. It seems like
> >
> > to continue correctly Axis2 will need the contexts to come back with the
> > same relationships and state ( flow information ect. ) it had before .
> >
> > Does this mean that we have to ask axis2-devs to bring back the Context
> > Hierarchy Serialization methods we agreed to remove from it sometime
> > back.
> > Or is there a better/different way?
> >
> > Thanx,
> > Chamikara
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message