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)
Message-ID: <44B7552B.8070408@coredevelopers.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:26:19 +0100
From: Jules Gosnell <jules@coredevelopers.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
CC: dev@wadi.codehaus.org
Subject: Re: [wadi-dev] Session/clustering API and the web tier
References: <44B42ED1.2070506@mortbay.com>
	 <44B4C6EC.7080201@coredevelopers.net>
 <ec6e67fd0607120616l60920044xb01c2e61efbd1e0b@mail.gmail.com>
 <44B6229A.6030703__7712.83745202727$1152787142$gmane$org@coredevelopers.net>
 <e95mn5$dg0$1@sea.gmane.org>
 <44B699DE.4000602__38160.6488758281$1152817672$gmane$org@coredevelopers.net>
 <e97ihb$s31$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <e97ihb$s31$1@sea.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Greg Wilkins wrote:
> Jules Gosnell wrote:
> 
>>I pressed 'send' without counting to 10 first on the last response. Sorry.
> 
> 
> No probs - no offence taken.
> 
> 
> 
>>I've obviously done a bad job of explaining myself so far. Is this
>>clearer ?
> 
> 
> Actually no - I preferred the slightly pissed off version for clarity :-)
> 
> 
> I actually think we are in agreement.. but don�t realize it.
> 
> You say that the getExcecutionLocation() style API I suggest leaks 
> clustering concerns into the webtier, but I am not suggesting that general
> container code calls this API.
> 
> I am suggesting a that a cluster aware interceptor calls it.
> This is the GSM intercpetion contract of your last email.
> 
> But given that interceptors are going to be very tier implementation
> specific and that Jetty has to write geronimo specific interceptors for
> security, transactions, .... then  it appears natural to me that the 
> G-jetty module is the natural place for that interceptor to live and
> we don't need to standardize it's contract.
> 
> 
> Or is it the existence of the standardized API between interceptor 
> and Policy that you object to?   Are your concerns such that 
> you do not think this API can be implemented efficiently?
> 
> 
> Give me 30minutes and I will post my latest mental picture of 
> how I would like to see the Cluster/Session API.
> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 

I see the GSM interceptor as a 'peninsula' of the GSM impl, because it 
deals with clustering concerns. The point at which it meets Jetty is at 
the generic interceptor API... - I guess this is one of the bones of 
contention.

Seen this way, the same interceptor code can be shared across all 
containers (via different interceptor adaptors), rather than duplicated 
by each container.... and less of the GSM's API needs to be exposed to 
the container...


Jules


-- 
"Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
crystallises out around it."

/**********************************
  * Jules Gosnell
  * Partner
  * Core Developers Network (Europe)
  *
  *    www.coredevelopers.net
  *
  * Open Source Training & Support.
  **********************************/