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 Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:53:46 GMT
+1.

Chamikara


On 12/10/05, Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ruchith
>
> I really like your suggestion. My only comment is that we should NOT
> inject an RM handler into a "security" phase. That would confuse everyone -
> me included. So can I suggest we add a "Persistence" or RM phase directly
> after security and inject the RM persistence handler there.
>
> Paul
>
> On 12/10/05, jaliya@opensource.lk <jaliya@opensource.lk > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Deepal and All,
> >
> > Yes, storing of messages should only happen for the RM enabled services.
> >
> > In any case if someone needs failover persistence he has to pay that
> > price
> > of storing messages, there are no other solutions to that.
> >
> > So in that case, the handler configuration explained by Ruchith should
> > work.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jaliya
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Deepal Jayasinghe
> > To: sandesha-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Supporting permanent storage based reliability
> >
> >
> > 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
> > To: Jaliya Ekanayaka ; 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