river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Minimise Codebase downloads Was: Re: StreamServiceRegistrar
Date Sun, 09 May 2010 07:10:21 GMT
Hmm, Gregg, I'm guessing you've got something in mind?  If you do, 
please donate it ;)

My general Ramblings, WARNING: may veer wildly off course, thoughts 
subject to change based on good suggestions too:

Yes, I'm thinking about a URL structure to annotate marshalled data with 
the package name and version number. This should assist people utilising 
OSGi to control ClassLoader visibility using jar Manifests and your new 
CodebaseAccessClassLoader, without River requiring it (what a mouth 
full). OSGi doesn't specify how to deal with deserializing objects, I 
suspect that's why R-OSGi (A Separate entity than OSGi which is a spec) 
has it's own binary serialization mechanism, which is proprietary, it 
doesn't preclude the use of another protocol though.

R-OSGi clearly, is heavily influenced by Jini, however OSGi and it's 
lookup semantics are best suited to their original design focus, JVM 
local modularity.  The OSGi lookup semantics, when applied to 
distributed computing cause problems during deserialization, R-OSGi 
despite having it's own binary serialization, exposes issues with 
ClassLoaders and class visibility because the registrar doesn't declare 
all associated classes (superclasses, parameters, method returns), only 
one interface by name, whereas Jini lookup semantics don't prevent 
determination of these classes allowing for better control of class 
visibility (although this hasn't been done yet other than Preferred 
Classes).  For that reason OSGi Service lookup semantics don't map well 
to distributed systems, but it does do a superb job of providing local 
jvm services, but were concerned with distributed services and they're 
very different beasties.

Perhaps it is fair to say that both Jini and OSGi registrars target 
their intended scope appropriately.  Therefore in an OSGi framework, 
where an application can utilise both Jini and OSGi services, should not 
attempt to map a local OSGi service to a Jini distributed service and 
vice versa, but instead use each for it's intended purpose.

Which brings me back to Service Interfaces, and a past river-dev 
discussion about Maven dependencies, I haven't used Maven, so can't 
comment too much, but you rightly pointed out that the dependencies are 
not on the *-dl.jar but instead the Service Interfaces defined in the 
Jini spec and hence the jsk-platform.jar. This I think, underpins most 
of the misunderstanding surrounding Jini technology, it is the Service 
Interface on which everything depends.  I've thought about this and 
believe that for non platform services, the Service Interface and any 
return or parameter interfaces / classes, should be packaged  (in a jar 
or jar's) separately from service implementations, as indeed, Jini 
service implementations are.  The service implementations (service and 
service-dl jar's) then should depend on the ServiceInterface.jar (SI.jar)

This is where Package Versioning comes in, when you vary your service 
implementation, you want a specific version linking your service.jar to 
your service-dl.jar, well you could just rename both jar's I suppose, 
but that doesn't fit well with some frameworks.  The service 
implementation (service.jar and service-dl.jar) is entirely a private 
concern, no classes that form any part of any public API belong within 
it, you can do whatever you like with any interfaces contained within an 
implementation without harming any external software, so long as the 
service.jar (server) and service-dl.jar (client) versions match.

Everything within a Service Interface jar (SI.jar) should be public API 
interfaces (whether from another jar, java or jini platform API 
classes), it must also be stateless and not require any form of 
persistence whatsoever.

Then ClassLoader visibility should be:

SI.jar ClassLoaders should be made visible to everything utilising it, 
as it forms contracts of compatibility between different Service 
implementations and clients, just like platform API or classes.  When we 
want to extend a Service Interface, perhaps by adding a new interface 
and method, we can increment its version, the version scheme publishes 
the expected level of backward compatibility, that way existing Services 
still work with the new version and the latest and greatest versions 
utilising new interfaces within the SI.jar don't break by loading an 
earlier version and get looked up by both new and old clients.

As an example if we had a Sales Broker Service we might have:

SalesBrokerService.jar - The service interface API.

BobTheBroker.jar - Bob's service implementation.
BobTheBroker-dl.jar - Bob's proxy.

This doesn't prevent Bill also providing the same service:
BillsBrokerage.jar - Bill's service implementation
BillsBrokerage-dl.jar - Bill's proxy.

All implementers use the same SalesBrokerService.jar, the clients do 
too.  The proxy's ClassLoaders are not directly visible to the Client 
Application ClassLoader, instead the client holds a reference to the 
proxy via the SalesBrokerService Classloader class type's, which are 
visible to both the Proxy ClassLoader and Client Application ClassLoader.

This brings me to Codebase downloads and proxy sharing, Bill and Bob, 
don't share proxy implementations, however Bill might provide a number 
of fail over services and want all his clients to use the same codebase.

Common codebase schemes could be broken up in a couple of different ways:

One way to share codebase is utilise the same codebase in different 
ClassLoaders, Bill might want to do this if he uses static class 
variables, specific to each service server node in his proxies (in this 
case Bill's the Principal):
CodebaseA->ClassLoader1->proxy1
CodebaseA->ClassLoader2->proxy2
CodebaseA->ClassLoader3->proxy3

However Bob (The Principal), might be happy to have all of his proxy 
object instances share the same ClassLoader and the same permissions.
CodebaseA->ClassLoader1->proxy1
CodebaseA->ClassLoader1->proxy2
CodebaseA->ClassLoader1->proxy3

The above apply only to smart proxy's.

For dumb proxy's all proxy's must be loaded in the ServiceInterface 
ClassLoader as they are just Java Reflective proxy's and don't require 
additional classes.

Dumb proxy's can be loaded like this:

CodebaseSI->ClassLoaderSI->proxy1- Bob's Service proxy
CodebaseSI->ClassLoaderSI->proxy2 - Bill's Service proxy etc.
CodebaseSI->ClassLoaderSI->proxy3
CodebaseSI->ClassLoaderSI->proxy4
CodebaseSI->ClassLoaderSI->proxy5

And can belong to anyone.

I have exactly no idea at this stage how to communicate these models 
into their respective semantics for determining class loading schemes 
during unmarshalling.

Anyone with ideas don't be afraid to post.

Now something handy that OSGi does is each bundle contains a list of 
permissions it requires, if we adopt this format for permissions for 
Service-dl.jar implementations and perhaps SI.jar too, it enables us to 
specifically restrict permission grants, it is like a contract of trust, 
the proxy tells you prior to loading it how much trust you must bestow 
upon it for full functionality, you might decide to have a set of grants 
tighter than those requested, but that's up to you, the client.

But one thing is clear, we can't afford to download a particular jar 
more than once.

Any new implementations must also play well within an existing Jini 
cluster too, so a Service might register two identical proxy's with 
different  ServiceRegistrar's, one with the old httpmd: URL scheme, and 
one with a new Package Version URL scheme that requires a codebase to be 
looked up.  The actual Service-dl.jar will be the same, just downloaded 
in different ways and loaded in different classloader trees by different 
client nodes.

The interesting part of Jini lookup ServiceTemplate's is it's basically 
looking for instanceof SomeServiceInterface.  The Marshalled proxy needs 
to commmunicate all packages and versions required for unmarshalling at 
the client, this could include any number of jar files to be downloaded.

So it's really all about how we package our services.

Then we can create an upload site with public ServiceInterface source 
and jar files that many people and companies can sign, forming webs of 
trust.  We also need a pool of common Entry classes that people can 
utilise.  That way if we're using delayed proxy unmarshalling, entries 
can be unmarshalled for filtering operations without downloading any 
proxy codebases.

Now we can have an OSGi compatible versioning scheme and simplified 
class loader framework without requiring OSGi (no OSGi Services, no OSGi 
bundle stop / start / persistence), perhaps even utilising some felix 
code in River for people that want versioning but not OSGi, but we 
should also provide the pieces for applications to fully utilise OSGi 
frameworks if they wish too, without requiring other nodes to do so.

Cheers,

Peter.


Gregg Wonderly wrote:
> One of the the things that I played around with was a Protocol handler which would use
a URL structure that specified such versioning information.  It would lookup services implementing
CodeBaseAccess and ask them if the could provide such a jar file.
>
> This kind of thing makes it easier to deal with some issues about total number of codebase
sources, but I am still not sure that it solves the problem you are thinking about.
>
> Gregg Wonderly
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 5, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:
>
>   
>> The other thing I'm working on is a PackageVersion annotation, using the implementation
version and package name from the Java Package Version spec, so developers can version their
proxy's allowing sharing of compatible bytecode for reduced codebase downloads.
>>
>> I'm hoping that these things combined will assist to enable lookup over the internet.
>>
>> Peter Firmstone wrote:
>>     
>>> Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Many of my service APIs have streaming sockets needed for I/O based activities.
 For example, remote event monitoring happens through an ObjectInputStream that is proxied
through the smart proxy on the client to a socket end point that the proxy construction provided
the details of on the server.
>>>>         
>>> This too is interesting Gregg,  I've done something similar with the StreamServiceRegistrar;
I've created a new interface called ResultStream, to mimic an ObjectInputStream, which is
returned from lookup.  The idea is to provide a simple interface and minimise network requests
by allowing a smart proxy implementation to request and cache larger chunks.  The main advantage
of the Stream like behaviour, is to enable incremental filtering stages and delay unmarshalling
of proxy's until after initial Entry filtering, then to control the progress of unmarshalling,
so your only dealing with one proxy at at time. Further filtering can be performed after each
unmarshalling, such as checking method constraints.  Any unsuitable proxy's can be thrown
away before the next is unmarshalled, allowing garbage collection to clean as you go and prevent
memory exhaustion.
>>>
>>> The StreamServiceRegistrar lookup method also takes parameters for Entry classes
that are to be unmarshalled for initial filtering, allowing delayed unmarshalling of uninteresting
entries.
>>>
>>> Unmarshalling will still be performed by the Registrar implementation, the client
just gets to chose when it happens.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter.
>>>
>>>       
>
>   


Mime
View raw message