river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Reedy <dennis.re...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maven repository Entry was Re: Codebase service?
Date Tue, 25 May 2010 04:05:51 GMT
Hi Peter,

I was hoping to take a step back for a second, perhaps its just me that seems to have my head
spinning of late on this list. I may have missed some things, but we've discussed many issues
over the past week:

- How to advertise the DL jar(s) a service vends, allowing a client to download requisite
jars that allow the jars to be loaded from a local (trusted) location
- Given the capability above, the need for a codebase service may not be required
- Conventions on how to develop River services, as it relates to jar naming, packaging and
what dependencies are between the various artifacts
- How to possibly move forward with utilizing Maven repositories and the implied capabilities
of published artifacts
- The development of a maven archetype to allow a developer to easily create a working project
in seconds

Your attention to detail and the documentation of how class loader interactions with regards
to security is great. I'd like to understand the requirements of what you have documented
below, the urge to refactor MarshalledInstance, and why the new class loader hierarchy needs
to be added to River. 

Perhaps I'm just missing some fundamental issues, but maybe we need to take some time and
determine the whys before the hows? Is this direction fundamental to the OSGi direction that
you're taking? If so, how does this impact non-OSGi based systems?

Thanks

Dennis

On May 24, 2010, at 1034PM, Peter Firmstone wrote:

> 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