Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:15:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Should we have our own socket listeners?
In-Reply-To: <42FE2378.70706@apache.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508131312320.1850@saturn.opentools.org>
References: <42FE2378.70706@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

	I like this idea a lot.  Not only does it resolve the keystore
problem, but I like the thread pool consistency, I would love to be able
to multiplex protocols over one socket, and I also think OpenEJB would
benefit from this kind of network pluggability (though I am supposed to
talk to David B to get a better understanding of the current OpenEJB
network layer).

Aaron

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Aaron's recent thread on SSL has made we wonder if we should consider 
> providing our own socket listeners for HTTP(S) and other protocols 
> rather than using the ones supplied by the containers we are embedding.
> 
> Reasons for doing it include:
> * ability to integrate with custom work managers (thread pools) and
>    SSL infrastructure
> * consistency across all embedded containers
> * potential for multi-protocol support on one end-point
>    (i.e. multiplexing everything over one port like WebLogic does which
>    can make life easier when firewalls are involved)
> * potential for integrating with custom QoS frameworks e.g. allowing
>    custom negotiation with load-balancers in a clustered environment
> * potential for hi-av version upgrades where we can version in a
>    upgraded component and hand off the physical socket resulting in
>    no loss of availability
> 
> Note that none of those features are HTTP specific.
> 
> The downside of course is that it may weaken integration between the 
> listener and the container being embedded; for some containers they may 
> be so closely coupled that doing this will actually make things 
> difficult. For example, I think doing this would be fairly easy for 
> Jetty, I don't know how easy it would be for Tomcat, OpenEJB, JMX, 
> ActiveMQ etc.
> 
> --
> Jeremy
>