FYI.
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
contribution.
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.
Jules
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
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
--
/*************************************
* Jules Gosnell
* Partner
* Core Developers Network (Europe)
* http://www.coredevelopers.net
*************************************/
|