[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ecf-dev] handling pub-sub providers with RFC 119

Hi Philipp,

Konradi, Philipp wrote:
Hi Scott,

Perhaps, but this isn't necessary the endpoint for all clients
participating in the group. That is, what if A (above) publishes a
service? What would its endpoint be in the service publication?
If A would publish a service, then I could think of its service endpoint
location in the service publication to look like:
B being the hostname of the broker, myServiceTopic being the name of the
JMS topic on which the ECF JMS provider is listening and the service
instance can be invoked.
The given URL is probably not 100% correct but hopefully provides an
idea of how it might look.

Yes, I agree this is possible (i.e. an endpoint identifier that identifies both the pub-sub group *and* the endpoint within that group).

But I would say it's sort of clumsy...as such an endpointID can become quite complex...and all this is in an opaque String (or an opaque URI :). IMHO the ECF ID notion works rather nicely for this...because

a) IDs can have namespaces...so it's possible to use that namespace to (e.g.) select a relevant provider (rather than using jms:activemq:ecf...etc).
b) IDs only need to be parsed once (whereas Strings or even opaque URIs potentially many times).
c) Having two IDs...one to identify the pub sub group to connect to, and the other to identify the endpoint within the group...seems more natural to me than to put them into an opaque and complex ID as above.

But in any event, since we (ECF) now have both, we can now accomodate providers that such addressing either way.


Regards, Philipp

-----Original Message-----
From: ecf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ecf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:09 PM
To: Eclipse Communication Framework (ECF) developer mailing list.
Subject: Re: [ecf-dev] handling pub-sub providers with RFC 119

Hi Phillip,

Konradi, Philipp wrote:
Hi Scott,

<stuff deleted>
[Konradi, Philipp] I'd prefer option two, since option one doesn't
support the transparency which RFC 119 targeted for OSGi application
(services&clients) bundles.

Agreed, option 1 doesn't support the intended usage of RFC119
(transparent remoting)...but in fact as I understand it RFC 119 in
current form doesn't actually support this model (pub/sub) of
remoting/remote services (because there is only the notion of
'endpoint'...and no notion of pubsub group).

So we (ECF) will/are introducing the API described below to make it
possible to use RFC 119 publication and proxy creation within pubsub
groups (e.g. JMS).  It is, of course, also possible for people to use
the ECF remote services API to explicitly access proxies and the other
forms of remote communication on IRemoteService as well.

BTW: in [0]:

Consider the following architecture:

A  <-->  B <--> C

In this architecture, we have two clients 'A' and 'C' and a server
'B'...all participating in the same publish and subscribe group.

To verify I've understood it correctly: 'server' is in case of JMS
JMS broker?

Sort of :). In ECF's JMS provider implementation (with TCP anyway)
situation looks like this:

A <--> (JMS Broker) <--> C

The JMS Broker can be (and usually will be) run on the same
as B (the ECF 'group manager'). But this isn't required,
the JMS Broker and B can/could be run on a process separate from B.
might ask...why have B at all?  Well, the answer is that B manages the
group membership for the entire group, so that reliable group
changes can be communicated to the others (A and C).  It also can/does
manage any authentication that occurs for access to the group.

...By 'these cases'
mean publish and subscribe groups that are used for remote services
between members of those groups (e.g. JMS groups, etc).

Currently, there's no direct support in RFC119 for remote services
within pubsub groups... because although RFC119 has the notion of
'endpoint ID', this endpoint ID gives the location of the remote
service's host...which assumes that the host is a server (i.e. can
reached *directly* from a client), rather than indirectly (i.e. via
pub/sub group).

[Konradi, Philipp] That's correct, RFC 119 really does not say a
about pub-sub... though my thinking was always that pub-sub is
possible with RFC 119 as well. But let's see, this discussion sounds
I assume by saying 'endpoint ID' you mean RFC 119
ServicePublication.PROP_KEY_ENDPOINT_LOCATION property.
ServicePublication defines also a property called
but this is just some unique service endpoint ID (e.g. an UUID)
to find out whether service metadata discovered via different
providers belongs to the same service instance or not.
My interpretation of RFC 119 PROP_KEY_ENDPOINT_LOCATION property is
it's the URL under which the advertised service endpoint can be
Right this is my understanding.

So in case of an Web service endpoint the url would probably contain
local host and port, in case of JMS (indirect communication) the url
would contain the host name of the JMS broker, port and the queue or
topic name.

Perhaps, but this isn't necessary the endpoint for all clients
participating in the group.  That is, what if A (above) publishes a
service?  What would its endpoint be in the service publication?

BTW: Would it make sense to add some (configuration) mechanisms to
select whether JMS queues or topics (request-response or pub-sub)
be used for exposure of a service?
I could think of using either intents for this or/and additional
configuration data with the service.

Effectively, ECF already now already has this with the
IHostContainerFinder. It would allow the usage of intents (or any
service properties) to determine how/what container (and what it's
configuration might be) is made available for usage as the
provider ...and for JMS can/could determine what JMS queues/topics are
used to expose the service (e.g. by creating JMS IContainer instances
appropriate type).

A custom IHostContainerFinder can replaced/substituted by creating an
implementation of IHostContainerFinder and registering it as a service
(whiteboard pattern) via the service registry with a service.ranking
that is higher than the default one (which is Integer.MIN_VALUE).



ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev mailing list