geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Genender" <jgenen...@savoirtech.com>
Subject RE: Network Properties & Naming
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2005 05:11:26 GMT
I have to try it...I am going off of the doco on the Tomcat web:

http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-5.5-doc/config/http.html

But it definitely doesn't hurt to try ;-)

Jeff 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Mulder [mailto:ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 7:49 PM
> To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Network Properties & Naming
> 
> 	Are you saying "localhost" doesn't work?
> 
> Aaron
> 
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
> > More to add here.  "Host" is a misnomer for the connectors 
> in Tomcat.  
> > They will not accept a "host"...it must be an ip address.  
> So I think 
> > "adress" is most approppriate.
> > 
> > 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > 	
> > 	No, I seriously doubt that a network admin could not 
> figure out what 
> > inetaddress meant, or even address for that fact.  I also think its 
> > not smart to go renaming Tomcat concepts...just because.  I 
> don't view 
> > this as the Tomcat plans as being misleading, they are using the 
> > Tomcat terms and concepts (and objects).  The last thing I 
> want to do 
> > is go renaming Tomcat objects...that makes little sense.
> > 	 
> > 	I am simply asking that we use a term that is not as 
> ambiguous.  In 
> > Tomcat land, they use the word "address" on the Connectors. 
>  Host is 
> > referenced throughout the plans and refers to a Host Tomcat 
> object and 
> > a Host GBean.
> > 	 
> > 	And...at this point, this should not impact existing 
> users...this is 
> > more of an issue with the management API going in for the 
> console.  I 
> > would think the impact is quite minimal at this stage in the game.  
> > Thats also not to say that we cannot use the word "host" 
> unofficially 
> > (undocumented) and allow the word "address" as the official 
> > version...thus having no impact on current users.
> > 	 
> > 	This is really simple folks, this does not need a huge 
> decision and 
> > long thread. (hint-hint).  At worst case, we can use "host" as the 
> > attribute.  Its easy to change the connectors now...but if 
> we wait, we 
> > will be stuck.  Lets just be pragmatic about this.
> > 	 
> > 	Jeff
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > 		From: sissonj@insession.com 
> [mailto:sissonj@insession.com] 
> > 		Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:51 PM
> > 		To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> > 		Subject: Re: Network Properties & Naming
> > 		
> > 		
> > 
> > 		Jeff Genender <jgenender@savoirtech.com> wrote 
> on 23/08/2005
> > 07:14:48 AM:
> > 		
> > 		> I am for anything but the word "host".  This 
> will definately cause
> > 		> confusion.  I think "address" or 
> "inetaddress" would be fine.
> > 		
> > 		I am wondering whether people who are not Java 
> developers (and 
> > therefore not familiar with the capabilities of the 
> InetAddress class) 
> > will be configuring the network configuration (e.g. when a 
> system is 
> > moved into production).  Will they be asking us, why is it 
> called "inetaddress"
> > instead of host? 
> > 		
> > 		What names should we be using for properties 
> where the value can 
> > only be an IP address (not a name)?  I think this is the 
> case with the 
> > allowHosts attribute in j2ee-server-plan.xml?
> > 		
> > 		Can we change the names in the Tomcat plans to 
> be less misleading 
> > (e.g. instead of using host to refer to a Tomcat host, call it 
> > tomcathost)? Tomcat is only one of many services that will run on 
> > Geronimo that will require network configuration?  The 
> change to the 
> > Tomcat configuration should have minimal impact to existing users 
> > since we haven't released a Tomcat enabled Geronimo yet, as M5 was 
> > intended to be the first Tomcat enabled release.
> > 		
> > 		We should document any naming recommendations 
> we come up with on the 
> > Wiki for others writing GBeans.
> > 		
> > 		John
> > 		
> > 		> 
> > 		> Jeff
> > 		> 
> > 		> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > 		> > So we have 3 properties for every network connector.
> > They are probably
> > 		> > most clearly described by using the 
> analogous java.net
> > objects:
> > 		> > 
> > 		> > InetAddress -- the hostname or IP to listen 
> on, settable
> > 		> > port -- the port to listen on, settable
> > 		> > InetSocketAddress -- the combination of the 
> previous two, 
> > read-only
> > 		> >   based on their settings
> > 		> > 
> > 		> > Right now, we use the property names (respectively):
> > 		> > 
> > 		> > "host" (String, for a host name or IP)
> > 		> > "port" (int)
> > 		> > "listenAddress" (InetSocketAddress)
> > 		> > 
> > 		> > So for any network listener, you configure 
> the host and port, 
> > they
> > 		> > typically get injected into the constructor 
> of the GBean in 
> > question, and
> > 		> > then at runtime you can get the host, port, 
> or listenAddress
> > 		> > (combination).  We like using the simple 
> String and int for the 
> > settable
> > 		> > properties, to make the management interface simple.
> > 		> > 
> > 		> > Jeff's raised the concern that the name 
> "host" might be 
> > misleading in
> > 		> > Tomcat, where there's already a well-known 
> "Host" object with a 
> > name, so
> > 		> > it might not be clear what the "host" 
> property is supposed to 
> > refer to.
> > 		> > I guess we could change our properties to 
> "address", "port", and
> > 		> > "listenAddress", or "listenAddress", "port", and 
> > "socketAddress".
> > 		> > 
> > 		> > Also, originally, the InetSocketAddress 
> property was in there so 
> > we could
> > 		> > distinguish any network-related GBeans in 
> order to show the list 
> > during
> > 		> > the startup sequence.  That's no longer 
> needed since we can now 
> > search by
> > 		> > interface instead.  So we might drop that 
> property.  But it 
> > could also be
> > 		> > useful to keep it and ask for it to 
> represent the "current 
> > listen state",
> > 		> > so if you change the port in the management 
> console the "port" 
> > property
> > 		> > might show the new port, but the "InetSocketAddress"
> > property would show
> > 		> > the old port until the connector was restarted.
> > 		> > 
> > 		> > Any thoughts on whether it's worth changing 
> these properties and 
> > what they
> > 		> > should be changed to?
> > 		> > 
> > 		> > Thanks,
> > 		> >    Aaron
> > 		
> > 		
> > 		
> > 		This e-mail message and any attachments may 
> contain confidential, 
> > proprietary or non-public information.  This information is 
> intended 
> > solely for the designated recipient(s).  If an addressing or 
> > transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the 
> > sender immediately and destroy this e-mail.  Any review, 
> > dissemination, use or reliance upon this information by unintended 
> > recipients is prohibited.  Any opinions expressed in this 
> e-mail are those of the author personally.
> > 		
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 



Mime
View raw message