river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: Maven repository Entry was Re: Codebase service?
Date Tue, 25 May 2010 02:34:41 GMT
Thanks Chris,

Sound like it's time for some MarshalledInstance Refactoring?

Perhaps a Maven (generic if possible) URL schema (with message digest 
support), we need an annotation (or name convention) that indicates 
whether proxy's can share ClassLoader & ProtectionDomain space, dictated 
by static variables and common Principals.

A new constructor for MarshalledInstance that accepts an alternate URL too.

... and two new methods in MarshalledInstance:
Object get(ClassLoader cl, CodeSource[] cs, boolean 
verifyCodeBaseIntegrity);
URL[] getCodeSourceAnnotation();

Then MarshalledServiceItem could include new methods:

public URL[] getCodeSourceAnnotation();
public Object getService( CodeSource[] cs );
//If cs == null || cs missing a CodeSource use default URL.

Note here that while unmarshalling has been delayed, I haven't 
relinquished control of ClassLoaders or ProtectionDomains, eg the client 
can use OSGi, without dictating the Service must also, none of the 
serialized instances from method returns will need to be deserialized by 
OSGi, avoiding altogether the OSGi deserialization issue. 

The client application doesn't have to deal with these concerns 
directly, we could write multiple ResultStreamFilters that can be 
chained, the filter that matches the URL schema will unmarshall the 
service, the filter sequence will dictate the preferred unmarshalling.  
The filter responsible for successful unmarshalling would construct a 
new ServiceItem, that isn't unmarshalled, the next unmarshalling filter 
would ignore it, allowing it to pass through.  After it is unmarshalled 
another filter will check method constraints.

Method Parameters that originate from client ClassLoaders will be 
unmarshalled in the Application ClassLoader space on the Service 
implementation node, this is where things get hairy if the Service API 
method parameters are non final, abstract or interfaces.  Any class that 
belongs to a Service API jar will be safely loaded into the Jini 
Platform ClassLoader space in it's own ProtectionDomain.  Client 
returned parameter classes however will need their own ClassLoader's

If the Service API is loaded into a Parent ClassLoader (Jini Platform 
ClassLoader) at the Service implementation node and API parameters are 
extended, the client classes will need their own ClassLoader space at 
the Service Implementation end, Since a service may serve many clients, 
these ClassLoaders must be shared, based on identical CodeSource and 
Principals.  The client classes will only be accessible via the Service 
API interfaces or classes (they are abstracted).

ANY CLIENT THAT IMPLEMENTS AN API Interface or extends an API parameter, 
will need to make it's implementation package jar publicly available.  
Like the proxy implementation, it is free to change, however it should 
be versioned appropriately, like the proxy and have it's own jar.  ( 
This is where the Java Package Version Spec comes in handy,  we can 
annotate classes with Package version and local CodeSource).  The 
CodeSource might contain a file URL, however it will contain the jar 
archive name (which is why Dennis want's to name packages with their 
versions, which can't hurt!) and given the Package Version Spec, it will 
work for OSGi bundles as well as Maven.  A client using an OSGi bundle 
must remember that all of the implementing classes should be in the same 
bundle and the Service node and may not be utilising OSGi, so shouldn't 
attempt to use any OSGi services in Service API parameter implementations.

The version spec will identify compatiblity of classes, the closed 
compatible local CodeSource may be used, otherwise a new ClassLoader 
will be used.  Each client will either share all compatible CodeSource 
and Principals or have their own ClassLoader space.

Greg, do you think we could use your service-client.jar for client 
parameter implementations or would this cause confusion?

Perhaps we should use:

service-param.jar

So to really round if off:

Service Implementers must produce versioned manifest jar archives of:

    Smart Proxy:

    Implementation jar: service.jar (depends on service-api.jar)
    API jar:            service-api.jar
    Smart proxy jar:    service-proxy.jar (depends on service-api.jar)
    Selfish Smart proxy jar:  service-iproxy.jar (depends on
    service-api.jar)

    Dumb Proxy:

    Implementation jar: service.jar (depends on service-api.jar)
    API jar:            service-api.jar


Client Implementers must produce version manifest jar archives of:

    Client Parameter extensions:   service-param.jar

If you didn't guess correctly the Selfish Smart proxy jar is the one 
that proxy's cannot share in the same ClassLoader and ProtectionDomain.


ClassLoader Structure (In addition to all your helpful comments on 
river-dev, thanks also to Jim, Tim & Mike, planting the seed):

               System ClassLoader
                       |
              Extension ClassLoader (incl jsk-policy.jar)
                       |
              Jini Platform ClassLoader (incl jsk-platform.jar, *-api.jar)
                       |
        _______________|__________________________________
       |                            |                     |
Application ClassLoader    Proxy ClassLoader's    Parameter Impl 
ClassLoader's
(Apps & Service Impl)      (Smart Proxy's)        (Remote client 
parameter classes)


Advise History:

Jim:     Use common Interfaces and classes in Parent ClassLoaders
Tim:    Thanks for research on Dependency Tree and ClassLoader Tree's 
and guidance.
Mike:  Research paper on ClassLoader issues.

Thanks & Praise worth mentioning:

Bob Scheifler and others for Jini's strong Security foundation.
Bill Venners for the ServiceUI, it is truly innovative

(hint: come back)


Christopher Dolan wrote:
> Isn't List<URL> already present in the MarshalledInstance?  Why repeat
> this as an Entry?  Wouldn't it be easier to just add a public accessor
> to deserialize the list of URLs from MarshalledInstance.locBytes?
>
> I apologize if this was already explained, but there's been a LOT of
> email to read on this list lately.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Reedy [mailto:dennis.reedy@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 9:29 AM
> To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Maven repository Entry was Re: Codebase service?
>
> [CJD] ... <snip> ...
>
> I would just go with a 
>
> List<String> dlJars;
>
> With this you could provide support for retrieving the DL jar(s) for
> non-maven systems as well. If the dlJars property contains 1 element and
> is of the form groupId:artifactId:version:classifier, then maven
> resolution gets used. Otherwise the DL jars can be obtained using the
> codebase of the advertising service.
>
> For maven resolution, I think you'll also want to either provide support
> for parsing your maven settings.xml or include the repositories to go
> find the artifact if it's not present. If the artifact is retrieved from
> the repository it will have a message digest along side of it (with
> either a .sha1 or .md5 extension). That can be used to compare a locally
> computed digest HttpmdUtil.computeDigest() for updates. But that
> comparison really only needs to take place for snapshots, since by
> definition releases are considered immutable.
>
> IMO supporting transitive deps is a must have, without that we really
> dont get that far. A DL artifact may depend on another DL artifact, and
> that DL artifact may have deps as well. 
>
>
>
>
>   


Mime
View raw message