geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Quintin Beukes <quin...@skywalk.co.za>
Subject Re: Can I make Geronimo work with my own implementation of web server?
Date Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:55:36 GMT
I just noticed the XML I gave was for a dev version. Here is another
semi-production one I found lying around, which I used when testing
against already balanced production servers, which shows some more
magick you can do with Tomcat, mostly related to custom valves, custom
config and custom HttpResponse/Request objects, and a very basic
clustering I had between 2 balancers that configured a floating IP in
case the "other" went down. You can really do alot (though with the
config I cheated by loading the LoadBalancer tag data into my own XML
processor).

<Service name="NineLives" className="mypackage.tomcat.NLService">
   <Executor name="ninelivesThreadPool" namePrefix="ninelives-exec-"
maxThreads="225" minSpareThreads="15"/>

   <Connector executor="ninelivesThreadPool" port="80"
protocol="org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol"
connectionTimeout="15000" />

   <Engine name="NineLives" defaultHost="balancer.status"
className="mypackage.tomcat.NLEngine">
     <LoadBalancer protocol="HTTP/1.1"
className="mypackage.lb.requesttyperobin.Manager">
       <BackendNode commonName="dynamic1noauth" hostname="10.85.0.101"
port="10080" alive="true">
         <Not><Authenticated/></Not>
         <Or>
           <Match>\.php(\?.*)?$</Match>
           <Match>.*/cgi-bin/.*</Match>
         </Or>
       </BackendNode>
       <BackendNode commonName="dynamic2noauth" hostname="10.85.0.102"
port="10080" alive="true">
         <Not><Authenticated/></Not>
         <Or>
           <Match>\.php(\?.*)?$</Match>
           <Match>.*/cgi-bin/.*</Match>
         </Or>
       </BackendNode>
       <BackendNode commonName="dynamic3auth" hostname="10.85.0.103"
port="10080" alive="true">
         <Authenticated/>
         <Or>
           <Match>\.php(\?.*)?$</Match>
           <Match>.*/cgi-bin/.*</Match>
         </Or>
       </BackendNode>
       <BackendNode commonName="static1" hostname="10.85.0.104"
port="10080" alive="true">
         <Not>
           <Or>
             <Match>\.php(\?.*)?$</Match>
             <Match>.*/cgi-bin/.*</Match>
           </Or>
         </Not>
       </BackendNode>
       <BackendNode commonName="backup1" hostname="10.85.0.105"
port="10080" alive="false">
         <Match>.*</Match>
       </BackendNode>
     </LoadBalancer>

     <Host name="balancer.status" appBase="webapps" unpackWARs="false"
autoDeploy="true" xmlValidation="false" xmlNamespaceAware="false">
     </Host>

     <Valve className="mypackage.filters.content.GoogleAnalyticsHtmlAppender"
gaID="[google-analytics-id]"/>

     <NineLivesCluster probePort="10050" partner="10.80.0.2"
probeTime="1000" maxFail="10"/>
     <!--<NineLivesCluster probePort="10050" partner="10.80.0.1"
probeTime="1000" maxFail="10"/>-->
   </Engine>
 </Service>

Q

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Quintin Beukes <quintin@skywalk.co.za> wrote:
> Well, it is quite tricky doing custom protocols. Though I had a vague
> plan on implementing SMTP using the same Connector framework.
>
> The problem with the connector framework is that it revolves around
> something like an "Adapter" which works only with stream based
> protocols following the "request/response" pattern.
>
> So, if your protocol follows this pattern, then you can use it. Beyond
> this the Request/Response classes are pretty generic. They don't yet
> have HTTP design in them. For that you have the
> HttpRequest/HttpResponse classes.
>
> So what you want to do is completely possible, and proven by the AJP
> protocol handler, which is widely used by people wanting to link
> tomcat and Apache HTTPD. Though AJP is very "HTTP like", it's not
> HTTP. It's a non-text protocol, and only shares similarities with http
> because it's meant to be an HTTP reverse proxy protocol, so it
> supports the concepts of headers/bodies, and follows the
> request/response pattern.
>
> Further. The protocol implementations in Tomcat have what is called
> "endpoints", which is the other party in the request IIRC. And with
> this class you can do you communication. The protocol handler is very
> generic, in having only lifecycle callbacks, and in these you would do
> you communicate and construct Request/Response objects, and pass it up
> the stack to the engine/service implementations.
>
> So to handle a completely custom protocol in Tomcat you would have to
> make your own Connector, with your own extensions of Request/Response,
> and then have your Engine/Service implementations that understand
> these types. You can even add your own XML tags, very easily. For this
> i had to modify the tomcat base, as they have no way to "extend" on
> the config file. I did however put the minimal code in the tomcat
> base, which accepted an interface and did callbacks to my library for
> the XML parsing. I for instance had the following <Service> tag (just
> to give an idea about the Engine/Service implementation and the custom
> XML:
>
>  <Service name="NineLives" className="mypackage.tomcat.NLService">
>    <Executor name="ninelivesThreadPool" namePrefix="ninelives-exec-"
> maxThreads="150" minSpareThreads="4"/>
>
>    <Connector executor="ninelivesThreadPool"
>        port="80" protocol="org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol"
>        connectionTimeout="20000" />
>
>    <Engine name="NineLives" defaultHost="ninelives.status"
> className="mypackage.tomcat.NLEngine">
>      <LoadBalancer protocol="HTTP/1.1"
> className="mypackage.lb.roundrobin.Manager">
>        <BackendNode commonName="backend1" hostname="127.0.0.1"
> port="8580" alive="true"/>
>        <BackendNode commonName="backend2" hostname="127.0.0.1"
> port="8580" alive="true"/>
>      </LoadBalancer>
>
>      <Host name="ninelives.status" appBase="webapps"
>          unpackWARs="false" autoDeploy="true"
>          xmlValidation="false" xmlNamespaceAware="false">
>      </Host>
>    </Engine>
>  </Service>
>
> As you can see I used HTTP, and thus didn't have my own protocol
> handler. But the <LoadBalancer> does have a protocol specification,
> which I would change to SMTP at a later time when linking my own
> connector. IIRC correctly the protocol option could be used to link
> back to a Connector so each load balancer would only handle requests
> from the appropriate connectors.
>
> I know this has nothing to do with Geronimo, or with your application.
> I just figured giving you some information on what I did might help
> clear up how you would do these things in Tomcat.
>
> After having written this I built up tremendous respect for Tomcat. If
> you have a look at the request stack, you would notice Tomcat has
> minimal overhead. It does very little in between receiving the request
> and handing it to the servlet. And it's extensible design allows you
> to completely customize next to anything in it's behaviour, while
> still having the benefit of it's thread pools and optimized
> request/response handling. I would definitely recommend using it. It's
> not easy to write your own protocol handlers. There is too many things
> to do if you want something that works well under all kinds of
> situations, esp. the "high load" situation, where Tomcat keeps up
> quite well.
>
> When I was researching the design of my load balanced, I did some
> benchmarks between some OSS Java proxies/servlet/HTTP
> containers/implementations. Of these, Tomcat was able to keep it's
> request times quite stable under high loads, where jetty started to
> have a very hard time keeping up. So it just shows that if you had to
> build on top of a Tomcat, not only do you benefit from a lot of
> existing features with years of maturity, but also from a high
> performance design, able to take the punch. It's actually these
> benchmarks that inspired the name for my application, ie. NineLives.
> The word "cat" in Tomcat, together with it's "survival" ability, and
> the "nine lives of a cat", I though of NineLives.
>
> So in my very critical/harsh research, I have to admit I started with
> a little bit of a negative attitude towards Tomcat, hoping Jetty would
> win. In the end Tomcat really made an impression on me.
>
> So all in all. What you would do should be possible, depending on the
> nature of the protocol you wish to implement. And if it's possible,
> you should seriously consider Tomcat over Jetty or your complete own
> development.
>
> Q
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:16 PM, sim085 <sim085@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Quintin Beukes-2 wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you referring to the connector framework of Tomcat? Frankly I
>>> don't see how you can't do what you want with Geronimo+Tomcat.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Quintin,
>>
>> That is what I tried to do a few months ago. What I tried to do is build my
>> own custom protocol handler within Tomcat itself. However the problem I
>> faced here was that the CoyoteAdapter class provided by tomcat handled all
>> request objects as HttpRequests. I had started a thread about this on the
>> Tomcat Nabble Forum here:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Tomcat-Custom-Connector-tc17620116.html (the last
>> entry). On that thread no one answered if I could create my own adapter and
>> if I could configure Tomcat to use this adapter together with the
>> CoyoteAdapter it already has.
>>
>> Unfortunately that has been some time ago and what was clear back then is a
>> little bit foggy now. However I am more then happy to check the code again
>> and try to understand it should it be necessary.
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Can-I-make-Geronimo-work-with-my-own-implementation-of-web-server--tp25320346s134p25329613.html
>> Sent from the Apache Geronimo - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Quintin Beukes
>



-- 
Quintin Beukes

Mime
View raw message