geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Dudney <bdud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Pre-RTC look at the openejb/geronimo yoko support and request for input [long].
Date Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:25:50 GMT
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.

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.

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?

I'm applying the patch now to play around with this, thanks again!

TTFN,

-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 http://issues.apache.org/jira/ 
>> browse/GERONIMO-2180, which is to add Yoko support to Geronimo.   
>> This is really patches for this issue plus 2 other issues that are  
>> highly related:
>>
>>    http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2002  OPENEBJ CORBA
>>    SSL should use Keystore GBean
>>    http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2353  Reduce the
>>    number of places where CORBA config parameters are specified.
>>
>> This should also be the first step toward achieving this goal:
>>
>>    http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-433  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
>


Mime
View raw message