river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike McGrady <mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com>
Subject Re: River & OSGi
Date Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:54:32 GMT
+1

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 6, 2009, at 9:11 PM, Sam Chance <sgchance@gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I'm a relative simpleton software engineer compared to many of you on
> this list. Nevertheless, I remain convinced the "group think"
> continues to stagnate River. That situation seems unlikely to change
> without intervention. I find myself rooting for those who get
> chastised for offering ways to say "yes". Don't get me wrong! I love
> you all - as brothers! :-) However, revolution seems in order.
>
> As for the subject of this email, I must be missing something.
> Lengthy, verbose and detailed narratives that most people probably
> don't really digest pervade threads - at least the threads about River
> & OSGi.
>
> If I said something like the following, would it be concise and
> accurate? Let's try.
>
> OSGi is a service architecture for services in the same address  
> space. [1]
>
> Jini/River is a service architecture for distributed systems built out
> of services separated by a network. [1]
>
> How in the world can it be so hard to grasp - even embrace - that the
> intersection of these two constructs is synergistic?
>
> I have an idea! Let the "Negative Nancys" hide and watch as Paremus -
> who get it - lead the industry and literally change the paradigm of
> application service architecture and provisioning.
>
> [1] Before you leap, be advised that these descriptions were provided
> by Jim Waldo in the "Artima" link someone provided earlier.
>
> In fact, I pulled the thread on the referenced articles. And if I
> understood Peter Kriens' posts correctly, Jini dropped out of
> prominence from the OSGi specs basically due to lack of passion - dare
> I say leadership? - from the Jini community. While I like to consider
> myself part of this community, there is no way I could write those
> lengthy, verbose and detailed emails discussing things like
> classloaders.
>
> But those who can write those novels should be contributing to the
> specifications and not acting like consultants: always finding ways to
> say "no".
>
> IMHO,
>
> Sam
>
>
> On 11/6/09, Mike McGrady <mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com> wrote:
>> I guess this means you would prefer not to address the issues and  
>> move
>> to personal attacks.  Weak but not atypical.  In fact many who follow
>> this will know me and will find this amusing.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> I just went back over the list to see what contribution you've made
>>> to River by reading some of your posts.  Your the bloke that gave
>>> cause for Dan Creswell to resign from River.
>>>
>>> This is a developer list, I'm trying to contribute something and get
>>> this project moving again as have others like, Jukka, Jonathan, Tom
>>> and Dennis among others.
>>>
>>> This software won't affect you, the Felix crowd are quite competent
>>> and won't consider accepting any patches that compromise their
>>> distribution.  It wont affect existing users of River that don't
>>> want to utilise OSGi either.  My suggestion to you is; if you don't
>>> like it, don't use it, but don't try to roadblock the hard work of
>>> others with rot.
>>>
>>> Now if you don't mind I'd like to get something done.  If someone
>>> knows this man, please take that iPhone off him, he's a nuisance.
>>>
>>> Peter Firmstone.
>>>
>>> Mike McGrady wrote:
>>>> I am getting ready to jump on an airplane, so will but initiate a
>>>> multipart reply.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 6, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au>  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike McGrady wrote:
>>>>>> First, I would like to know what the "shared" "Service Pattern" 

>>>>>> is.
>>>>> Sharing - Objects moved between jvm's in a distributed  
>>>>> environment.
>>>>
>>>> "Shared" in your previous post meant a shared pattern.
>>> Your reading too much into it, "Service Pattern" as in Pattern
>>> literature, I didn't refer to "Shared Pattern".
>>>
>>> 2. Jini utilises the Service Pattern for sharing distributed
>>>   pluggable java software.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Distributed Service Pattern -  Dynamic Runtime Discovery - Lookup
>>>>> of Objects that share a common Interface, receiving a proxy that
>>>>> enables the transmission of as Parameters and Returned Methods
>>>>> using Jeri / RMI / Serialization etc.
>>>>
>>>> The terminology just changed,  "Service Pattern" now has
>>>> distributed added.  Please indicate what this "pattern" is where it
>>>> occurs in Felix.  Looks like a loose and inappropriate use of
>>>> "pattern" if you mean design pattern, like inapropriately calling
>>>> MVC a design pattern.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, I would like to note that in my opinion changing Felix,
>>>>>> which is architecturally on firm ground to accommodate Jini is a
>>>>>> huge mistake.
>>>>> Why? Felix is designed to be embedded into systems, are you
>>>>> suggesting Felix isn't suitable, would you prefer I use another
>>>>> Modular infrastructure to manage package visibility?  If so which
>>>>> one? The current alternative JSR-294 depends on Java 7 and hasn't
>>>>> been released yet.  I fail to see why utilising mature code as
>>>>> opposed to expending much time reimplementing when something
>>>>> already exists would be a huge mistake?   I have considered
>>>>> extending Classworlds, however this would require jvm restarts
>>>>> when packages needed to be replaced.  The Java Package Version
>>>>> Specification is optional and isn't widely implemented.
>>>>
>>>> OSGi is designed with services that are not inherently remote and
>>>> are dynamic in that they appear and disappear in the course of a
>>>> runtime.  This is very different from "managing package
>>>> visibility".  You need to distinguish.modularity, lifecycle
>>>> management and services and to more appreciate their varied levels
>>>> of abstraction.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not convinced that this analysis understands the depth of
>>>>>> OSGi.  Certainly the module, lifecycle, service levels of
>>>>>> abstraction in OSGi seem to me to not coincide with the notion of
>>>>>> service in Jini.  This difference is greater when distribution is
>>>>>> considered.  I would suggest that no decisions be made without a
>>>>>> more developed and better expressed alternative than this.  Felix
>>>>>> does not need to compromise it's architectural integrity to
>>>>>> accommodate less mature concepts in Jini.
>>>>>
>>>>> OSGi segregates bundles of software (jar files with metadata) into
>>>>> separate classloaders, controls visibility of packages between
>>>>> bundles based on compatibility information (metadata) in jar files
>>>>> and enables the bundles to be stopped, replaced and restarted.
>>>>
>>>> This is a serious but not unusual over simplification of OSGi.
>>>> This is the lowest level of OSGi.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To utilise OSGi, a Jini program must be distributed in a bundle
>>>>> containing dependency information on package version imports.
>>>>
>>>> This is ambiguous in important respects.
>>>>
>>>>> To be made available outside its Classloader (one for each bundle)
>>>>> the visibility of Packages must be controlled, it's public API
>>>>> Packages must be registered ie the bundle started.  Since Java
>>>>> cannot reload class files when a Bundle is upgraded, it must
>>>>> reside in another Classloader, so Classloaders are Bundle and
>>>>> version specific.  The service pattern enables the bundle to be
>>>>> rediscovered by identity locally within the JVM after an upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you understand what an OSGi service is.  An OSGi
>>>> service is a contract.
>>>>
>>>>> A Jini service must be exported and registered to be available for
>>>>> lookup, if it is being managed by an OSGi framework it must first
>>>>> have it's bundle started and registered.
>>>>
>>>> What you mean by "managed" needs to be specified.  JIni
>>>> registration and OSGi registration are not the same of course.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jini currently loads class files into classloaders based on the
>>>>> local availability of classes or http coadebase URL origin,
>>>>> imposing restrictions on sharing of Objects, this is suboptimal,
>>>>> OSGi can assist in resolving this issue by providing a framework
>>>>> that manages package visibility.  However I don't believe that
>>>>> OSGi alone is enough in a distributed environment
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean here?  OSGi is what it is.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide me with facts so we can have a meaningful  
>>>>> discussion,
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea how this relates to this discussion.  What facts
>>>> about what?
>>>>
>>>>> from your reaction I detect your gut feel is telling you this
>>>>> isn't the right approach, my gut feel is that it is. I've based my
>>>>> reasoning on facts, I need some factual information to be
>>>>> convinced otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> What facts?  You have not explained what you mean and you speak
>>>> very loosely where precision is required, but yet make very
>>>> sweeping and important recommendations.  My mind, not my gut, does
>>>> not like this since we do important business with Felix and do not
>>>> want it fiddled with without clarity, understanding and open
>>>> discussion at depth.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think, again, you understand the nature and proper
>>>> architectural positioning of OSGi services.  Rather, you seem to
>>>> focus on the sorts of things or understandings we could get from
>>>> sources like Wikipedia, I.e., superficial and misguided. Maybe your
>>>> understanding is deep and accurate but we have no way of knowing
>>>> and what you say indicates the opposite.
>>>>
>>>> Ideas - nor facts - are at issue.
>>>>
>>>> I have asked you to to tell me about your view of services on this
>>>> context, which is critical, and have gotten a gloss of liwer level
>>>> functionallity.
>>>>
>>>> Let me remake my request that you explain what you initially meant
>>>> about Jini and OSGi services because it sounds all wrong to me.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No offense intended.
>>>>
>>>> None taken - ditto.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well,  I've had a good think about it, this is presently the
way
>>>>>>> I'd like to utilise OSGi:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First let me make one thing clear:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Both OSGi and Jini utilise the Service Pattern.
>>>>>>> 2. Jini utilises the Service Pattern for sharing distributed
>>>>>>>  pluggable java software.
>>>>>>> 3. OSGi utilises the Service Pattern for making java software
>>>>>>>  modular, versioned and pluggable without JVM restarts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I refer to Jini I'm referring to the Jini Platform, when
I
>>>>>>> refer to River, I'm referring to the Apache River implementation
>>>>>>> of Jini.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Java Also uses the Service Pattern with SPI for 3rd Party
>>>>>>> Vendors to Provide Pluggable implementations of JVM components
>>>>>>> or extensions, eg JDBC, Encryption software etc. Gregg inspired
>>>>>>> me by pointing out possible PreferredClassLoader changes
>>>>>>> utilising the RMIClassLoaderSPI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By embedding an OSGi implementation such as Felix into River
in
>>>>>>> a pluggable manner (usage is optional) River can support OSGi
>>>>>>> applications and provide Jini Services to those local
>>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doing so will require modification to the Felix Codebase, which
>>>>>>> is probably best managed as a Patch for a Particular Version
of
>>>>>>> Felix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additionally, I figure further modifying to Felix to support
>>>>>>> interactions with Remote Codebase Services utilising Static
>>>>>>> Analysis to identify Package API.  The Static Analysis will be
>>>>>>> used for three reasons, one to identify compatibility between
>>>>>>> software in addition to the Bundle & PackageVersion metadata,
>>>>>>> two to identify later versions of import packages that are
>>>>>>> compatible using a Subset of their API used by a Bundle.  Lastly
>>>>>>> but perhaps most significantly to allow software to evolve
>>>>>>> without fear of runtime exceptions caused by binary
>>>>>>> incompatibilities.  Modification to Felix would be done in a
>>>>>>> manner that didn't break compatibility with OSGi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me make one thing clear, OSGi does not compete with River,
>>>>>>> nor is OSGi's remote service standard intended to compete with
>>>>>>> distributed frameworks, nor are they intending to implement a
>>>>>>> distributed framework, the API is there to be utilised by
>>>>>>> distributed frameworks, OSGi made a statement to this effect.
>>>>>>> Benefits:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Existing OSGi Applications can be hosted by River.
>>>>>>> 2. Existing OSGi Applications can utilise Jini Services without
>>>>>>>  modification to OSGi applications, in a pluggable fashion.
>>>>>>> 3. The River Platform (with OSGi felix embedded) is the minimum
>>>>>>>  installation requirement (apart from Java), all sofware can
be
>>>>>>>  downloaded on demand from codebase services, guaranteed
>>>>>>>  compatible, including additional security benefits from having
>>>>>>>  bytecode API identified by Static Analysis from a code base
>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>  trust relationship.  The codebase would never execute uploaded
>>>>>>>  bytecode, just analyse and distribute it.  Hence codebases are
>>>>>>>  mediators/proxy's for disconnected or untrusted service
>>>>>>> providers
>>>>>>>  or clients.  All code and API apart from a minimal core  
>>>>>>> platform
>>>>>>>  code could evolve dynamically over time.
>>>>>>> 4. OSGi enables local bundles to be restarted, this would allow
>>>>>>> River
>>>>>>>  to locally update older bundle's when a need no longer exists
 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>  utilise an older version bundle or if another bundle requires
a
>>>>>>>  later version, complementing software evolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that this is perhaps a somewhat bold ambition, however
I
>>>>>>> believe it would increase the interest in the River project,
>>>>>>> especially from the OSGi community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are plenty of details to work out, such as how to
>>>>>>> implement persistence services for bundles and their import
>>>>>>> packages over restarts, how to coordinate starting and stopping
>>>>>>> of bundles that contain Jini remote services.  How to proxy Jini
>>>>>>> Lookup services from within the OSGi framework to make these
>>>>>>> services available to existing OSGi applications.  OSGi would
>>>>>>> not be able to work with Jini Services that didn't themselves
>>>>>>> utilise OSGi, Felix wouldn't know which bundles were required
>>>>>>> for compatibility reasons.  That's where codebase services would
>>>>>>> come to the rescue, by checking for known OSGi bundles that are
>>>>>>> in fact compatible and substituting them.  If a compatible
>>>>>>> bundle couldn't be found the codebase service would have to
>>>>>>> create a bundle using available code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One remaining concern I have is the approach of integrating
>>>>>>> Felix into River.  I'd like to make the required changes within
>>>>>>> Felix Pluggable components if possible, so that the existing
>>>>>>> felix implementation would only require some minor changes that
>>>>>>> we might be able to get them to accept.  That would allow us
to
>>>>>>> have a totally independent implementation which could continue
>>>>>>> to work with future versions of Felix, and possibly other OSGi
>>>>>>> implementations, in case word spreads about River in the OSGi
>>>>>>> community.  I can't see that I could use OSGi for replacing OSGi
>>>>>>> system components, but it might be possible using SPI,
>>>>>>> ironically again another Service Pattern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I acknowledge that the alternative method of making River a
>>>>>>> bundle within OSGi is possible without changes to OSGi, however
>>>>>>> it doesn't make it possible then for OSGi to utilise the
>>>>>>> codebase services I'm interested in.  If someone can show me
>>>>>>> that it is possible to do so I'll consider the option seriously.
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> Sam Chance
> 443-694-5293 (m)
> 410-694-0240 x108 (o)

Mime
View raw message