geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <>
Subject Re: Pre-RTC look at the openejb/geronimo yoko support and request for input [long].
Date Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:40:00 GMT
Bill Dudney wrote:
> This is great news! Feels like we are getting very close to being able 
> to move to J2SE 5 and Java EE 5!
>> 1)  Leave the Sun ORB code in the tree, make the yoko package a 
>> separate module that with a dependency on the openejb2 code.  The 
>> existing build works ok, and the tests can be built for the Sun ORB.  
>> The build of the yoko package could then have its own versions of the 
>> tests, which would work find.
>> 2)  Replace the Sun ORB code with the yoko code and kick the Sun code 
>> into a separate module.  Same things apply with the test.
>> 3)  Place both ORB adapters in outside modules, each with their own 
>> builds and tests.
> I prefer option 3 if I understand you correctly with this we can have 
> an assembly that is intended to run on Sun JDK and one intended to run 
> on Sun or anywhere else.
You can get that capability with all 3 of these.  However, with option 
1, the openejb2 code can only be built using the Sun 1.4.2 JDK.  Option 
1 has the smallest disruption to the existing code though, which is the 
only reason I included it in the list.  We basically can jump in to the 
pool from the shallow end (option 1) or the deep end (option 3).  My 
personal preference is 3 also.

> On Issue #3 is it just a build problem? From the sound of it the code 
> won't run if the Sun ORB code is in the bootstrap class path (as it 
> would be on the Sun 1.4 JDK). If we go with option #3 above and 
> completely remove our dependence on the Sun ORB then we could run just 
> fine on the 1.4 JDK correct? If that is the case then I think dropping 
> the Sun ORB ASAP (getting past the TCK etc.) is the way to go.
Issue #3 is a runtime issue, not just a built problem.  The Sun ORB code 
is ALWAYS on the bootclass path, since it is part of the JVM.  In 
particularly, the versions of the org.omg.* classes that come with the 
JVM are back level to (and incompatible with) the version that comes 
with Yoko.  As a result, the Yoko code cannot run unless it is placed in 
endorsed.dir.  However, when things are set up that way, then the Sun 
code has the same won't run because of the same 

> I was also just looking at 2180 and noticed that the yoko dependencies 
> are in maven, is it safe to pull them from there instead of using the 
> attached zip file?
Yes...I hadn't realized that we'd been publishing Yoko snapshots to the 
repository yet.  Assuming the snapshots are reasonably up-to-date, that 
version should work ok. 

> I'm applying the patch now to play around with this, thanks again!
> -bd-
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 12:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> Great work!!!
>> On Sep 14, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>> I've just attached patches for issue 
>>>, which is to add 
>>> Yoko support to Geronimo.  This is really patches for this issue 
>>> plus 2 other issues that are highly related:
>>>    SSL should use Keystore GBean
>>>  Reduce the
>>>    number of places where CORBA config parameters are specified.
>>> This should also be the first step toward achieving this goal:
>>>  Tolerate 
>>> non-Sun JREs
>>> And should also be a step toward allowing full support of Java 5.
>>> This code works as far as being able to start and stop the 
>>> j2ee-corba system module.  Fuller testing is going to require 
>>> getting the MagicGBall app working and then see how this works with 
>>> TCK testing.  There are some issues with doing either of those steps 
>>> at the moment, but I decided this is a good point to show people 
>>> I've done, since it will be easier to ask questions about it.
>>> Let me give the basics of what I've done, and I have a few areas I'd 
>>> like community input on how I should proceed from here.
>>> The bulk of the changes are really around GERONIMO-2353.  While 
>>> trying to fit the Yoko ORB into this structure, I found a number of 
>>> pain points:
>>>   1. The org.openejb.corba.SunNameService GBean only supported the Sun
>>>      ORB, and was not generally configurable like CORBABean or CSSBean
>>>      were.
>>>   2. The CORBABean and CSSBean configuration included "args" and
>>>      "props" items which were passed directly through to an ORB.init()
>>>      call.  These attributes were used to configure things like the
>>>      initial listener port, the host server name, and the initial
>>>      NameServer location.  In a few cases, the values set were not
>>>      portable between ORB implementations, which made it more difficult
>>>      to switch between ORBs.
>>>   3. The CSSBean and CORBABean declarations needed to be coded with a
>>>      dependency on SystemProperties.  The SystemProperties object was
>>>      initializing various system properties that were needed by the
>>>      ORB, and also enabled the RMI support.  These properties were
>>>      generally not portable between ORB implementations, since they
>>>      included references to Sun specific classes.
>>> To clean this up, I reworked the ConfigAdapter interface used in the 
>>> current code base.  This interface now has 3 basic operations 1)  
>>> create a name service, 2)  create a server ORB, and 3) create a 
>>> client ORB.  The existing code is just configured with a 
>>> ConfigAdapter class name and the CORBABean/CSSBean services 
>>> instantiated an instance of the class.  Now the ConfigAdapters are 
>>> GBean instances, and the doStart() methods of these GBeans are 
>>> encapsulate the responsibility for setting the RMI system 
>>> properties.  SunNameService has been replaced by a generic 
>>> NameService GBean, and NameService, CORBABean, and CSSBean all take 
>>> a ConfigAdapter instance in their constructors.  Now, from a plan 
>>> standpoint, it's possible to switch between ORBs by changing a 
>>> single line in the plan.   All of this work is really independent of 
>>> the Yoko-specific changes, but did make it easier to write the Yoko 
>>> code.
>> This sounds great!
>>> Which brings me to
>>> ISSUE #1:  I added a NameService argument to the CORBABean 
>>> constructor.  The ConfigAdapter would take this NameService 
>>> instance, and configure the ORB to use the NameService.getURI() 
>>> result for it's initial  NameService reference.  Well, when trying 
>>> to get Geronimo to build, I got a failure on one of the client plans 
>>> because there was a CORBABean coded, but no NameService.  The 
>>> CORBABean had use the now obsolete arguments attribute to configure 
>>> the ORB to use a remote NameService.  I thought on this a little, 
>>> and decided to just add a "local" attribute to the NameService 
>>> GBean.  If local is false, then the bean does not launch a local 
>>> server instance and the getURI() returns the remote location of the 
>>> NameService as specified by the host/port combination.  This worked 
>>> very well, but it somehow feels like a convenience hack to me.  Does 
>>> this sound ok, or should I take some other approach with this?
>> This seems reasonable to me.  There might be an even better way to 
>> deal with this, but we definitely need to support both a name server 
>> in the same vm (in which case with luck we can communicate with it 
>> in-vm without tcp) or a remote name server.  We were starting a name 
>> server in vm mostly because it's simpler to administer.  
>> Theoretically we could start an app client where all it did was run 
>> the name server :-).
>>> For GERONIMO-2002, I create a new SSLConfig GBean.  This class has a 
>>> reference to a KeystoreManager GBean, plus various attributes that 
>>> are required to generate SSLSocketFactory and SSLServerSocketFactory 
>>> instances for creating the SSL sockets.  The CORBABean and CSSBean 
>>> objects can be configured with an SSLConfig reference, which is then 
>>> used whenever an SSL connection is required.  This is separate from 
>>> the TSSConfig/CSSConfig specifications.  TSSConfig/CSSConfig help 
>>> determine WHEN an SSL connection is required.  The SSLConfig 
>>> determines HOW the connection gets created when it is required.
>>> ISSUE #2:  This works fairly well for the j2ee-corba plan, which 
>>> imports the j2ee-security plan.  The j2ee-security plan defines the 
>>> default KeystoreManager instances, so things get resolved properly.
>>> On the client side, the client-corba plan does not import 
>>> j2ee-security, so I didn't have a configured KeystoreManager to work 
>>> with.  It did not seem appropriate to import the j2ee-security plan, 
>>> since there were items here that did not apply well to a client 
>>> configuration.  As a shortcut, I just copied the KeystoreManager 
>>> definitions into the client plan, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable 
>>> that this will define/locate the KeystoreManagers properly.  Does 
>>> anybody with more experience with the security support have 
>>> suggestions for how this should be handled?
>> I think you should put the KeystoreManager gbean into the 
>> client-security plan.  You will definitely break things if you try to 
>> start any server configuration such as j2ee-security in the client.
>> This is excellent!
>>> And, finally, GERONIMO-2180.  This code was rather straightfoward 
>>> once I'd completed the above items.  I just created an 
>>> org.openejb.corba.yoko package, added a ConfigAdapter 
>>> implementation, plus whatever ORB-specific classes were required to 
>>> bridge between the ORB and Geronimo.  Not really a lot of code in 
>>> this package.  BUT....
>>> ISSUE #3:  In order for the Yoko ORB to function properly, the Yoko 
>>> jar files need to be part of the endorsed.dir configuration or 
>>> included on the bootstrap classpath.  This makes it very difficult 
>>> for the Yoko and the Sun code to coexist in the same build tree.  
>>> The code will compile ok, but unit tests are a problem.  There are a 
>>> couple of tests that caused problems.  The SunNameService class had 
>>> a test which I replicated for the Yoko NameService.  If the build 
>>> was enabled for the Sun ORB, the Yoko test would cause a build 
>>> failure.  If enabled for the Yoko ORB, the Sun test would fail.  
>>> When I made the changes to have a generic NameService GBean, both of 
>>> these tests became obsolete, so they are deleted for now.  Once we 
>>> sort out the coexistance strategy, I'll try introducing new tests.  
>>> There was a similar problem with one of the TSSConfigEditorTest, 
>>> which needed to create an configure a CORBABean instance.
>>> On the Geronimo side, there are similar problems.  Building any of 
>>> the corba configurations depended upon whether the yoko classes were 
>>> in endorsed.dir.  If there were absent, it was not possible to build 
>>> a yoko-based configuration.  If present, it was not possible to 
>>> build the Sun-based configuration.  There was some suggestion that 
>>> we might need to ship additional full assemblies to accommodate this.
>> I think we should consider setting up a parallel universe of yoko 
>> assemblies with additional configs modules as needed and find out how 
>> much work we have to convince the interop tck tests to pass.  At that 
>> point we will have a better idea what to do next.
>>> For the openejb2 code tree, I see several possibilities:
>>> 1)  Leave the Sun ORB code in the tree, make the yoko package a 
>>> separate module that with a dependency on the openejb2 code.  The 
>>> existing build works ok, and the tests can be built for the Sun 
>>> ORB.  The build of the yoko package could then have its own versions 
>>> of the tests, which would work find.
>>> 2)  Replace the Sun ORB code with the yoko code and kick the Sun 
>>> code into a separate module.  Same things apply with the test.
>>> 3)  Place both ORB adapters in outside modules, each with their own 
>>> builds and tests.
>> I vote for (3).  I've wished the corba code was in 2 additional 
>> modules (runtime and builder) for a really long time.
>>> Possibility 1)  Has one serious disadvantage as it leaves the 
>>> openejb2 code tree coupled to the Sun 1.4.2 JVM.  Either 2 or 3 will 
>>> remove that particular Java 1.4.2 dependency.  Does anybody have and 
>>> strong feelings about this?
>>> ISSUE #4 is then how do we manage the possibility of both the Sun 
>>> ORB support and the Yoko support?  Will this actually require 
>>> separate assemblies to work, or is there some means to easily allow 
>>> the switching?
>> I suspect we should be able to set it up so that the openejb configs 
>> don't depend on the corba configs/jars so we might be able to put in 
>> the corba support as plugins or have several assemblies.
>> After we get yoko working does anyone think we need to preserve sun 
>> orb support?
>>> Anyway, a lot of words to digest.  Issues #3 and #4 are the ones 
>>> that are going to cause the most pain to implement, so I'm really 
>>> interested in getting community consensus on how to proceed here.
>> This is exciting!
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>> Rick

View raw message