Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 10:47:57 -0700
From: Scott Lewis <
slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ecf-dev] Re: ecf-dev Digest, Vol 45, Issue 35
To: "Eclipse Communication Framework (ECF) developer mailing list."
<
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <
4A119F4D.7040107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Roshan,
I have not yet completed the test case for activemq, as I have been
modifying the existing test cases (in
org.eclipse.ecf.remoteservices) so
that provider-specific testing of remoteservices will be easier (both
for activemq provider and for other current/future providers). One
complicating factor is that testing using normal junit testing (i.e. all
tests in a single process) doesn't really test thing with remoting
properly...and so I've been modifying the tests to have an abstract
service host application (separate process)...i.e. via these classes:
org.eclipse.ecf.tests.remoteservice.AbstractConcatHostApplication
And a tests with an abstract service consumer:
org.eclipse.ecf.tests.remoteservice.AbstractConcatConsumerTestCase
There are also tests for the RFC 119 impl that are in
org.eclipse.ecf.tests.osgi.services.distribution. In particular, this
abstract test class
org.eclipse.ecf.tests.osgi.services.distribution.AbstractServiceRegisterTest
My intention is to create
activemq-specific test cases, based upon these
abstract tests...both for ECF remote services API and for the RFC119
impl (which is based upon the ECF remote services API).
So, in any case, I will do what I can to get these activemq
provider-based tests in place this week. If you (Roshan) are
able/willing to help with this, please open a bug/enhancement request
and consider attaching code/code fragments of tests that you are
able/willing to contribute.
Note the mechanism here (for pub-sub containers) that remains to be
tested is implemented in
org.eclipse.ecf.osgi.services.distribution.DefaultProxyContainerFinder
This is a default proxy container finder...which currently has logic to
*connect* a container (to the pubsub group) if the
endpointDescription.getConnectTargetID() returns a non-null value (see
line 85 in DefaultProxyContainerFinder). For pubsub containers (e.g.
activemq) this getConnectTargetID() should/will be non-null and so
consumers will be connected to the identified pub/sub group before proxy
lookup occurs.
Note also that if you wish, you may define your own logic for
IProxyContainerFinder (and IHostContainerFinder) and implement as
desired (i.e. you don't have to use the DefaultProxyContainerFinder's
logic at all).
So, in any event...I'll be working on test code for this in the very
near future.
Thanks,
Scott
roshan joseph wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> Could you please point me to the test case you have created to test
> the pub/sub for RFC 119 using the Activemq jms provider?
> I am in the process of creating a sample proto type using ActiveMQ JMS
> topic for my publish/subscribe of remote services through RFC 119
> transparent way, hence this would be of great help.
>
> I did look at
the
http://ecf1.osuosl.org/ site but did not find any
> recent changes under the activemq packages. If you are still in the
> process of testing this, can you give me some direction on how to
> achieve pub-sub of remote services in a group through activemq and ECF
>
> Thank you in advance...
>
> Regards
> Roshan
>
>
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:18:25 -0700
> From: Scott Lewis <
slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <
http://us.mc395.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>
Subject: [ecf-dev] handling pub-sub providers with RFC 119
> To: "Eclipse Communication Framework (ECF) developer mailing list."
> <
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> <
http://us.mc395.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Message-ID: <
49EF5161.2020405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <
http://us.mc395.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=49EF5161.2020405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Recently, there was a message thread titled "Remote service with
> ActiveMQ JMS topic using RFC 119 transparent way. " and in this
> message
> [0], I described some work I'm doing with the ECF RFC 119 impl to
> easily
> deal with these cases (i.e. option 2 in my message). By 'these
> cases' I
> 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 an
> '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 be
> reached *directly* from a client), rather than indirectly (i.e. via a
> pub/sub group).
>
> ECF's IContainer can represent communication with either an endpoint
> (server) *or* a pubsub group and this makes it possible to use this
> capability to support peer-to-peer remote services within a pub-sub
> group (e.g. a jms topic).
>
>
In order to make this capability accessible via the ECF RFC119 impl
> (please add to your thoughts about giving a name to ECF's impl
> here [1])
> , I've added some API to our RFC119 implementation in
> org.eclipse.ecf.osgi.services.distribution. What it does is
> expose both
> the *endpointID* and the *connectTargetID* in the discovery-published
> meta-data (i.e. see this interface [2]). On the client side, this
> information about the remote service (both it's endpointID and
> connectTargetID) can then be used to connect to a pub/sub group at
> remote service discovery time (but only when the connectTargetID is
>
non-null...note that this has *no* effect/relevance for client-server
> distribution providers).
>
> I've implemented the mechanism to do this, and am working on some
> test
> code using the ActiveMQ (JMS) provider. If others are interested in
> helping test this, please let me know.
>
> One more thing...in this previous thread [3] I brought up the
> issue of
> dealing with the situation where potentially many remote services
> were
> published/available on a lan (e.g.) and it was unclear (from
> RFC119) how
> this should be handled...e.g. does the announcement of
some remote
> service mean that another remote service doesn't get a proxy? Should
> all remote service discoveries lead to proxy creation? How can an
> application provide some control/scope to the proxy creation?
>
> RFC119 doesn't really address this situation yet, but I've added two
> service interface called IProxyContainerFinder, and
> IHostContainerFinder
> [4] that allows other bundles to register themselves as 'container
> finders'...i.e. to decide which (of potentially many) remote services
> providers should handle a discovered service publication. Note that
> these container finders allow full customization of
the remote
> service
> discovered meta-data (i.e. they can decide to create new IContainers,
> reuse old ones, ignore some, etc). The way to replace the
> DefaultProxyContainerFinder is to simply register your own
> implementation of IProxyContainerFinder (or IHostContainerFinder)
> as an
> OSGi service...e.g:
>
> bundleContext.registerService(IProxyContainerFinder.class.getName(),new
>
> MyProxyContainerFinder(), null);
>
> And when services are discovered via the discovery impl(s) your
> container finder will be consulted to make the decision about what
> IContainer
should/will handle the request. Note that currently the
> service with the highest service ranking will be selected (if
> there are
> many), and the DefaultProxyContainerFinder has the lowest service
> ranking possible (so will only be used if *no* other container
> finders
> are registered in the service registry).
>
> Note that there is also a IHostContainerFinder, to allow the same
> sort
> of customization for selection of the IContainers to handle the host
> service publication (with the default being all existing IContainers).
>
> Any comments welcomed. I'm working on testing/debugging this
API
> right
> now (it already works fine with the r-OSGi and ecf generic providers
> (i.e. in org.eclipse.ecf.tests.osgi.services.distribution), but I
> want
> to verify the correct behavior for ActiveMQ provider also, as above).
>
> To summarize, the two API additions are:
>
> 1) IServiceEndpointDescription including both endpointID and
> connectTargetID
> 2) Adding IProxy/HostContainerFinder API to allow for
> customization/extension of the default container selection
> mechanism for
> both host and proxy handling.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
Scott
>
> [0]
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg02265.html> [1]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=270652> [2]
>
http://www.eclipse.org/ecf/org.eclipse.ecf.docs/api/org/eclipse/ecf/osgi/services/discovery/IServiceEndpointDescription.html> [3]
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg02206.html> [4]
>
http://www.eclipse.org/ecf/org.eclipse.ecf.docs/api/org/eclipse/ecf/osgi/services/distribution/package-summary.html>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ecf-dev mailing list
>
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxhttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-devEnd of ecf-dev Digest, Vol 46, Issue 15
***************************************
