geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gareth Bryan" <garethbr...@fastmail.fm>
Subject Re: [JNDI] [Config] Thought
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:39:11 GMT
I understand what you're saying, but it does sound quite network chatty.

As cautionary note: I have known customers of commercial app servers
really bitch about the chattiness /between/ nodes in a cluster. This
should be kept to an absolute minimum

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 21:52:27 +0100, "Alex Blewitt"
<Alex.Blewitt@ioshq.com> said:
> It would be a single service, but could easily be adapted for 
> distributed systems. For example, each Geronimo app server is likely to 
> have a server VM running server services, which could include the JNDI 
> server. Then, each other node has a JNDI server which synchronizes its 
> state with the others.
> 
> With a backend DB, it's very likely that the DB could be used to 
> provide the synchronization. Files may be more problematic, unless they 
> are on a network device.
> 
> So, doesn't necessarily need to be a single point of failure although 
> it would be a single service.
> 
> Alex.
> 
> On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 20:31 Europe/London, Gareth Bryan wrote:
> 
> > I like this idea:- but wouldn't it introduce a single point of failure?
> >
> > (I guess the same problem will hold for any config node in a cluster)
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 19:28:26 +0100, "Philip Dodds"
> > <philip.dodds@unity-financials.com> said:
> >> I certainly agree.  The idea of holding all configuration information 
> >> in
> >> a
> >> repository such as LDAP would certainly be useful within clustered and
> >> grid
> >> style environments.
> >>
> >> Philip
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alex Blewitt [mailto:Alex.Blewitt@ioshq.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:55 PM
> >> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: [JNDI] [Config] Thought
> >>
> >> Why can't/shouldn't all configuration be stored in JNDI, presumably as
> >> subdirectory (sorry, subcontext) specific to geronimo?
> >> (java:comp/env/genronimo, or other such domain).
> >>
> >> JNDI supports pretty much everything you need -- contexts (one per
> >> server/node/app/ejb/servlet/whatever) and an unlimited amount of
> >> configuration entries (poolsize, max thread, min thread).
> >>
> >> And if the JNDI is going to be backed by Technology X, then that
> >> provides a way for users to administer the data directly. But a app
> >> configurator can just be based on reading/writing JNDI values.
> >>
> >> JNDI also not only supports tree-like structures, but also references
> >> to other parts of the tree as well which would be ideal (for instance)
> >> to represent relationships like 'App Y is in node Z'
> >>
> >> And lastly, XML extraction of a JNDI source would be a doddle, or even
> >> be backed by the JNDI-XML server (though IMHO a JNDI-DB server will be
> >> more scalable for read-write data synchronised across multiple nodes
> >> for clustering).
> >>
> >> Can anyone think of a good reason why JNDI cannot/should not be used 
> >> as
> >> /the/ place to store config information? That way, the server will 
> >> only
> >> need one start-up parameter -- the JNDI server to connect to.
> >>
> >> Alex.
> >>
> >> PS Isn't this what Windows 2000 uses for its registry, and what 
> >> Windows
> >> XP uses to mount its Active Directory? Certainly, Mac OS X is moving
> >> more towards a directory-managed approach (be it backed by LDAP or
> >> whatever) -- so why don't we do the same for Geronimo?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > -- 
> >   Gareth Bryan
> >   garethbryan@fastmail.fm
> >
> > -- 
> > http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...
> 
-- 
  Gareth Bryan
  garethbryan@fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin

Mime
View raw message