geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jules Gosnell <>
Subject [web clustering] (was Re: Volunteers - Topics AND Clustering)
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:58:29 GMT

I'm on the third or fourth rethink of my web clustering stuff based on 
JavaGroups (a JMS port should not be hard). The second iteration is the 
solution Jetty currently uses.  I hope that this will  be a useful 

If anyone wants to discuss it with me I am around....

Once I have satisfied myself that it will work, I shall put a mail out 
to geronimo dev explaining it :-)

There is bound to be plenty of common ground between this and other 
clustering efforts, so I shall keep myself in the loop.


James Strachan wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 06:32  pm, Harman, Jeff wrote:
>> I would like to work on Clustering and possibly JMS services that run 
>> in a cluster.
> Me too :)
>> To wit:
>> The J2EE 1.4 spec does not specifically address clustering but, I 
>> believe that it is an essential service to have in order to gain 
>> acceptance as a J2EE container.
> Agreed.
>> We could follow JBoss's lead and use something like JavaGroups to 
>> help maintain state or we could layer it on top of other mechanisms 
>> like JMS and allow JMS to manage intra-process communications.  Of 
>> course this would require that the JMS mechanisms be distributed 
>> (unlike JBoss).
>> IMHO, I believe that JMS should act as a client of the cluster and 
>> not the other way around.
> Agreed.
> The only point of the above to note is that JavaGroups is LGPL and we 
> cannot import any LGPL code into any Apache code. Basically *GPL is 
> viral so we cannot import directly any *GPL code.
> However if we were to create a facade API (maybe with Bela and the 
> other JavaGroups folks) that abstracted JavaGroups and made the API 
> BSD licenced and JavaGroups implemented it then that would be fine. 
> i.e. that LGPL code imported our BSD code and not the other way around.
> This API would also allow us to have a JMS implementation as well.
> I've had some conversations with Bela about this and he seems OK with 
> helping to create this facade API. (There's even been talk of turning 
> this facade API into a JSR for Group Communication).
> Or another approach is we create the API ourselves as part of Geronimo 
> to abstract out what we actually need from a group communication 
> layer; then this could be implemented outside of Apache for JavaGroups 
> and inside Apache for JMS. (Unfortunately this would mean we could not 
> certify with JavaGroups, only with JMS).
> An even simpler solution would be to persuade Bela to licence 
> JavaGroups as BSD :)
> James
> -------

 * Jules Gosnell
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network (Europe)

View raw message