Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 83707 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2009 17:55:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Aug 2009 17:55:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 88847 invoked by uid 500); 28 Aug 2009 15:08:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ws-axis-dev-archive@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 88754 invoked by uid 500); 28 Aug 2009 15:08:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 88745 invoked by uid 99); 28 Aug 2009 15:08:43 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:08:43 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of afkham@gmail.com designates 209.85.222.188 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.222.188] (HELO mail-pz0-f188.google.com) (209.85.222.188) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:08:35 +0000 Received: by pzk26 with SMTP id 26so2012401pzk.0 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:08:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=X00aLPPg0opkOFKdGPlTXyhbeyWbW0YMy34SKIGCz+s=; b=LeQG1UvyECkFNQPcdbB/ogDRuof8wo43O4E+UPQAIG2MkxYYdfSYJyE82NMRLKNvuP ktzExoUPMG6z3Lm0Sl7fRuwKc2fnRnKUpQ7xXHLn8CYoBWraS0V+ZbX9nzH9bS3H/D9I Ipkl1Tnf4O6U9AZxDWuW6SQiN2K5BZxAeQfgk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=rzpZz0oLwU3PC1Mnx94NZttMK9Lx3HZVgSD9Pf0Mg6v5sN0g5hUYqkyu0E9YHJeWnz LQwgZrzEdibUbRO5JdLGDfJg6ifm0bTX2jnVEKfl891+QyImLjubCPsdHrhr0qZspPgG cfL8KdtSRQEML3M9Or9hnjM3W6JAqiwp5el2c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.202.14 with SMTP id z14mr64312wff.30.1251472094399; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:08:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4A97DCFC.4030708@gmail.com> <9b85c45f0908280730w38a88a7eief7bcd459bcdb8f3@mail.gmail.com> <4A97ED94.1080206@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:08:14 +0000 Message-ID: <9b85c45f0908280808w2dbd9043qd7b815d22a321984@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Supporting hierarchical service deployment From: Afkham Azeez To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd2e2faa211430472350d47 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd2e2faa211430472350d47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Andreas, you are right. It is not only about the version number. The hierarchy may semantically reflect the version number. It could be used for many things. e.g. in a multi-user/multi-tenant deployment, all services of a particular user/tenant can be stored under a certain directory. This structure is also reflected in the endpoint addresses. Azeez On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote: > Guys, > > Are we actually discussing the right question? Looking at the patch > proposed by Isuru, I have the impression that versioning is merely one > use case, but that (in contrast to modules) the code doesn't make any > assumption about the meaning of the hierarchy in the repository (it > could be version number, but it could also something completely > different). Fundamentally the change is not about versioning, but > about giving the user the possibility to define the structure of the > endpoint URL. > > I share Deepal's concern about the possible impact of this change. He > mentioned the WS-Addressing case, but I believe that this change will > also break autogeneration of WSDLs: probably the endpoint URLs in the > WSDLs will be wrong. > > Andreas > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 16:45, Deepal jayasinghe wrote: > > > >> IMHO, service versioning & module versioning are two different things. > >> Module versioning is purely a deployment time concept, > > of course not, we can have two different version of the same module and > > engage the one we want based on our requirement, it is not deployment > > concept, it is also there in run time too. > >> while service versioning is both a deployment & dispatch time concept. > >> So there is no need to follow the same way of implementing it. I also > >> think that deriving the module version from the MAR name is messy, and > >> is not necessarily the best or better way of implementing it. > > There is a way that you can specify the name in the module.xml. > > It may be messy, but we discussed in the mailing list and implement that > > way. > >> It should come from the module descriptor; module.xml. Java archives > >> do not have a standard way of having the version name in the artifact. > >> That is why OSGi introduced the bundle version in the manifest file. > >> So, IMO, trying to derive the name from a service, module or any other > >> artifact is a bad practice. > > I do not mind having version number in the services.xml, but I do not > > agree the way Isuru has implemented the version support. > > > > File name has to be unique right? I mean just because OSGi handle the > > version number using manifest file file name has to have the version > > number of some sort of unique suffix right? > >> > >> Unfortunately, there is no standard for Web service versioning, and > >> there are different ways of implementing it. A popular way is to make > >> the WSDL targetNamespace and/or the types namespace to contain the > >> version. > > I agree, sometime you need to reflect the version form tns and URL. > >> > >> Azeez > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Deepal jayasinghe >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Isuru, > >> > >> Thank you for taking your time and looking to this issues, but I > >> do not > >> agree the way you have address it, please see my comments below. The > >> reason I am telling this is, as I can see this has so many issues, > and > >> you have made it complicated too :) . I believe you might know that > we > >> have version support for modules and we do not handle that like > >> this. So > >> this simply break the consistency, and this introduce new URL > >> patterns , > >> though you have not encounter now, I am sure you are going to face a > >> number of issues (when it come to dispatching). > >> > >> > Currently Axis2 can only deploy services at the > repository/services > >> > level. This makes it impossible to deploy several versions of > >> the same > >> > service. > >> I do not agree, you can have the version name in the aar file, for > >> example foo-1.0.aar and foo-1.1.aar. Then at the deployment time > just > >> append the version number to the service name (to make the service > >> name > >> unique) > >> > > >> > Therefore, I've improved our deployment engine to deploy services > by > >> > looking at the hierarchical path of the service. For example this > >> > allows us to deploy a service > >> repository/services/foo/bar/version.aar. > >> > And also this allows us to deploy any number of services as > follows. > >> > repository/services/versionService/1.0.0/version.aar > >> > repository/services/versionService/1.0.1/version.aar > >> Don't you think this is complex ? what is different between > >> "services/versionService/1.0.1/version.aar" and > >> "services/version-1.0.1.aar" ?. As far as I know second one is > better > >> than the first one (and you do not need much modification to handle > >> that). Which is the commonly used approach for all sort of version > >> management. (am I missing something?) > >> > > >> > In the implementation, I've attached the hierarchical part of the > >> > service (versionService/1.0.1/) in front of the service name > >> which is > >> > read from the services.xml. And also I've fixed the URI based > >> > dispatching logics to dispatch the services correctly. > >> Then how about addressing based dispatching ? > >> I remember the mess we had when someone introduce portName into > >> the URL, > >> I think we still have issues with that (though no one uses the > >> feature). > >> > > >> > This improvement doesn't affect any of the existing > functionalities. > >> Of course it does? how do you make sure when you change the > dispatcher > >> it does not break any of the existing features ? (we do not have > >> enough > >> test cases to cover all the cases) I think I have enough experience > in > >> Axis2, what when someone change something hoping that does not break > >> something. > >> > The only limitation of this is we can't deploy a RESTful service > in > >> > this manner. > >> This is a problem right? > >> When the system move from one version to other, client will notice > >> that > >> the service does not work any more? > >> > Those can only be supported at repository/service level. That is > >> > because, incoming URL of a RESTful service can contain '/' > separated > >> > parameters to the service. > >> oh boy, you are making system tooooooo, complicated. > >> > >> I am sorry I am -1 on this approach, we need to discuss this > >> before we > >> implement. > >> In fact I remember we had some discussion on this at one of the > >> apachecon, there also we did not come to a conclusion. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Deepal > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Thanks > >> Afkham Azeez > >> > >> Blog: http://afkham.org > >> Developer Portal: http://www.wso2.org > >> WSAS Blog: http://wso2wsas.blogspot.com > >> Company: http://wso2.com > >> GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9 B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760 > > > > > > -- > > Thank you! > > > > > > http://blogs.deepal.org > > http://deepal.org > > > > > -- Thanks Afkham Azeez Blog: http://afkham.org Developer Portal: http://www.wso2.org WSAS Blog: http://wso2wsas.blogspot.com Company: http://wso2.com GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9 B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760 --000e0cd2e2faa211430472350d47 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andreas, you are right. It is not only about the version number. The hierar= chy may semantically reflect the version number. It could be used for many = things. e.g. in a multi-user/multi-tenant deployment, all services of a par= ticular user/tenant can be stored under a certain directory. This structure= is also reflected in the endpoint addresses.

Azeez

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009= at 3:00 PM, Andreas Veithen <andreas.veithen@gmail.com> wrote:
Guys,

Are we actually discussing the right question? Looking at the patch
proposed by Isuru, I have the impression that versioning is merely one
use case, but that (in contrast to modules) the code doesn't make any assumption about the meaning of the hierarchy in the repository (it
could be version number, but it could also something completely
different). Fundamentally the change is not about versioning, but
about giving the user the possibility to define the structure of the
endpoint URL.

I share Deepal's concern about the possible impact of this change. He mentioned the WS-Addressing case, but I believe that this change will
also break autogeneration of WSDLs: probably the endpoint URLs in the
WSDLs will be wrong.

Andreas

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 16:45, Deepal jayasinghe<deepalk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, service versioning & module versioning are two different= things.
>> Module versioning is purely a deployment time concept,
> of course not, we can have two different version of the same module an= d
> engage the one we want based on our requirement, it is not deployment<= br> > concept, it is also there in run time too.
>> while service versioning is both a deployment & dispatch time = concept.
>> So there is no need to follow the same way of implementing it. I a= lso
>> think that deriving the module version from the MAR name is messy,= and
>> is not necessarily the best or better way of implementing it.
> There is a way that you can specify the name in the module.xml.
> It may be messy, but we discussed in the mailing list and implement th= at
> way.
>> It should come from the module descriptor; module.xml. Java archiv= es
>> do not have a standard way of having the version name in the artif= act.
>> That is why OSGi introduced the bundle version in the manifest fil= e.
>> So, IMO, trying to derive the name from a service, module or any o= ther
>> artifact is a bad practice.
> I do not mind having version number in the services.xml, but I do not<= br> > agree the way Isuru has implemented the version support.
>
> File name has to be unique right? I mean just because OSGi handle the<= br> > version number using manifest file file name has to have the version > number of some sort of unique suffix right?
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is no standard for Web service versioning, an= d
>> there are different ways of implementing it. A popular way is to m= ake
>> the WSDL targetNamespace and/or the types namespace to contain the=
>> version.
> I agree, sometime you need to reflect the version form tns and URL. >>
>> Azeez
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Deepal jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com
>> <mailto:deepalk@gmail.com<= /a>>> wrote:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Hi Isuru,
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Thank you for taking your time and looking to this issues,= but I
>> =A0 =A0 do not
>> =A0 =A0 agree the way you have address it, please see my comments = below. The
>> =A0 =A0 reason I am telling this is, as I can see this has so many= issues, and
>> =A0 =A0 you have made it complicated too :) . I believe you might = know that we
>> =A0 =A0 have version support for modules and we do not handle that= like
>> =A0 =A0 this. So
>> =A0 =A0 this simply break the consistency, and this introduce new = URL
>> =A0 =A0 patterns ,
>> =A0 =A0 though you have not encounter now, I am sure you are going= to face a
>> =A0 =A0 number of issues (when it come to dispatching).
>>
>> =A0 =A0 > Currently Axis2 can only deploy services at the repos= itory/services
>> =A0 =A0 > level. This makes it impossible to deploy several ver= sions of
>> =A0 =A0 the same
>> =A0 =A0 > service.
>> =A0 =A0 I do not agree, you can have the version name in the aar f= ile, for
>> =A0 =A0 example foo-1.0.aar and foo-1.1.aar. Then at the deploymen= t time just
>> =A0 =A0 append the version number to the service name (to make the= service
>> =A0 =A0 name
>> =A0 =A0 unique)
>> =A0 =A0 >
>> =A0 =A0 > Therefore, I've improved our deployment engine to= deploy services by
>> =A0 =A0 > looking at the hierarchical path of the service. For = example this
>> =A0 =A0 > allows us to deploy a service
>> =A0 =A0 repository/services/foo/bar/version.aar.
>> =A0 =A0 > And also this allows us to deploy any number of servi= ces as follows.
>> =A0 =A0 > repository/services/versionService/1.0.0/version.aar<= br> >> =A0 =A0 > repository/services/versionService/1.0.1/version.aar<= br> >> =A0 =A0 Don't you think this is complex ? what is different be= tween
>> =A0 =A0 "services/versionService/1.0.1/version.aar" and<= br> >> =A0 =A0 "services/version-1.0.1.aar" ?. As far as I know= second one is better
>> =A0 =A0 than the first one (and you do not need much modification = to handle
>> =A0 =A0 that). Which is the commonly used approach for all sort of= version
>> =A0 =A0 management. (am I missing something?)
>> =A0 =A0 >
>> =A0 =A0 > In the implementation, I've attached the hierarch= ical part of the
>> =A0 =A0 > service (versionService/1.0.1/) in front of the servi= ce name
>> =A0 =A0 which is
>> =A0 =A0 > read from the services.xml. And also I've fixed t= he URI based
>> =A0 =A0 > dispatching logics to dispatch the services correctly= .
>> =A0 =A0 Then how about addressing based dispatching ?
>> =A0 =A0 I remember the mess we had when someone introduce portName= into
>> =A0 =A0 the URL,
>> =A0 =A0 I think we still have issues with that (though no one uses= the
>> =A0 =A0 feature).
>> =A0 =A0 >
>> =A0 =A0 > This improvement doesn't affect any of the existi= ng functionalities.
>> =A0 =A0 Of course it does? how do you make sure when you change th= e dispatcher
>> =A0 =A0 it does not break any of the existing features ? (we do no= t have
>> =A0 =A0 enough
>> =A0 =A0 test cases to cover all the cases) I think I have enough e= xperience in
>> =A0 =A0 Axis2, what when someone change something hoping that does= not break
>> =A0 =A0 something.
>> =A0 =A0 > The only limitation of this is we can't deploy a = RESTful service in
>> =A0 =A0 > this manner.
>> =A0 =A0 This is a problem right?
>> =A0 =A0 When the system move from one version to other, client wil= l notice
>> =A0 =A0 that
>> =A0 =A0 the service does not work any more?
>> =A0 =A0 > Those can only be supported at repository/service lev= el. That is
>> =A0 =A0 > because, incoming URL of a RESTful service can contai= n '/' separated
>> =A0 =A0 > parameters to the service.
>> =A0 =A0 oh boy, you are making system tooooooo, complicated.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 I am sorry I am -1 on this approach, =A0we need to discuss= this
>> =A0 =A0 before we
>> =A0 =A0 implement.
>> =A0 =A0 In fact I remember we had some discussion on this at one o= f the
>> =A0 =A0 apachecon, there also we did not come to a conclusion.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Thanks,
>> =A0 =A0 Deepal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks
>> Afkham Azeez
>>
>> Blog: http://afkha= m.org
>> Developer Portal: http://www.wso2.org
>> WSAS Blog: http://wso2wsas.blogspot.com
>> Company: http://wso2= .com
>> GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9 =A0B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0= 760
>
>
> --
> Thank you!
>
>
> http://blogs.dee= pal.org
> http://deepal.org<= br> >
>



--
Thanks
A= fkham Azeez

Blog: http://afkham.org
Developer Portal: http://www.wso2.org<= /a>
WSAS Blog: http://wso2wsas.blogspo= t.com
Company: http://wso2.com
GP= G Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9 =A0B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760
--000e0cd2e2faa211430472350d47--