incubator-celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Remote service transport system
Date Fri, 24 May 2013 06:29:48 GMT
> Hi,
> Thanks for the message and your work regarding remote services! Looking
> forward to your implementation!
>> So to summarize: What Transport system should I implement? ZeroMQ and
>> introduce a dependency and maybe a legal issue.
> For me this is still unclear. So hopefully one of our mentors can advice.
> The referenced page mentions including LGPL code, are we (Celix) including
> any of this? Or do we expect the user to install ZeroMQ and do we only
> "include" header files in our code? If so, is it then allowed? If not, why
> is "including" GCC headers allowed? They are GPL, not even LGPL.
> I do think however that is important that we do not distribute any of the
> ZeroMQ code, or binaries which are static linked with ZeroMQ.
> As said before, I am not sure, hoping that any of our mentors can help us
> out here.
>> A message queue system
>> from the list above? Or build it in TCP?
> From a technical point of view there is nothing wrong with having multiple
> implementations. The current Remote Services code doesn't make this
> simple,
> but I'd like to invest some time in a more pluggable system for this.
> But for now a new RemoteServiceAdmin implementation can be made.

For the implementation I plan to completely remove mongoose from the
RemoteServiceAdmin and make the RSA use a Transport service, which should
be a new bundle to take care of the whole transport of the data. I will
post a more detailed plan on this as soon as I have selected the message
queue/transport system.

> As for an alternative, using an existing implementation might be
> worthwhile, especially when we want to connect to Java OSGi. This implies
> the system has to have a C and Java binding/implementation (which isn't a
> problem if I look at the list).
> But having a dependency on a large third party system might as well be a
> drawback in some cases. It creates an additional dependency for the user.
> For example, I assume all of the messaging systems require some server to
> be setup/started. For larger and real life systems I don't think this is a
> problem. But for someone who is just interested in OSGi, Celix and
> remoting
> this might be an issue.
> So from that point of view I'd love to see a "configuration-less" solution
> (ie, no external setup/config other then in Celix self). But I also
> welcome
> a more complex solution with an existing message system.
> So I think this mostly depends on your own needs/time.

For a "configuration-less" solution either TCP or ZeroMQ would work since
they don't need a broker running. ZeroMQ does need the library to be on
the system running the RSA but installing is takes about 7 steps. The
other systems all have a broker or some other application that needs to be
running on a system to handle the queue's.

> --
> Met vriendelijke groet,
> Alexander Broekhuis

Met vriendelijke groet,

Erik Jansman

View raw message