The changes to org.eclipse.wst.server.core.internal.Server
are actually not required - it is setting up defaults which should automatically
be overwritten when the user picks a hostname. Outside of WTP we actually
have a couple of (non-generic) adapters that support remote servers, so
the wst.server framework should already support this unless you run into
any special cases.
For the server states, I'm not convinced
that we need new ones. We've seen two types of servers with similar requirements
- in one case we used the same states and just used different text in the
UI, and in the other there is a background thread that just updates the
state between STARTED, STOPPED, or UNKNOWN. Unless we are expecting large
delays when trying to connect, do we really need to have new states or
display it any different to the user? If I'm not thinking along the same
lines as you, a state diagram might help to clear things up.
In either case, please open a bug for
this support, and so that we can track any changes. Even if you aren't
done enough of your investigation to submit a patch or requirements, we
can continue the discussion there or even assign the bug to you for now.
:)
Arthur - The API you're suggesting already
exists. org.eclipse.wst.server.core.util.SocketUtil.isLocalhost() returns
true if the hostname is local, taking into account the various forms of
localhost and DNS lookup.
Thanks,
Tim deBoer
WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada Ltd.
(905) 413-3503 (tieline 969)
deboer@xxxxxxxxxx
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/03/2005 02:43 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
To
"General discussion
of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [wtp-dev] Remote Server
Support
Mike,
Seems like hostname != localhost
is not a safe way since there are other ways to refer to your local machine,
e.g. 127.0.0.1, or use the actual hostname, e.g. at work I'm ryman.torolab.ibm.com.
Why not add a property to explicitly indicate local support?
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
"Mike Reidy"
<mike.reidy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/03/2005 12:40 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
To
"'General
discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.'" <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[wtp-dev] Remote Server Support
Hello WTP-Dev,
I am working on a patch to enable use of remote servers with the Generic
Servers from WTP, with this in mind I have already taken out the hard-coded
âlocalhostâ hostnames in the classes org.eclipse.wst.server.core.internal.Server
and org.eclipse.jst.server.generic.core.internal.GenericServerBehaviour
and replaced them with calls to the method org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.getHost()
which is now working. Also I have created a server definition for
a server type that has a property of supportsRemoteHosts=âtrueâ so that
I can see a servertype when I change the hostname. I can now create
a local version and a remote version of my server type, and I can even
start my local server.
Where I am now is that I have got to a point that when I try to run my
remote server ie. (my connect to a remote server server) it is running
though a piece of code in org.eclipse.jst.server.generic.core.internal.GenericServerBehaviour.
setupLaunch() that checks that the ports
for the server are not in use and this is a problem for connecting to a
remote server as this check is irrelevant, instead I would like to disable
this check and anything else that is specific to using a server on a local
machine in the remote case. What would be an acceptable way of doing
this? Would hostname != localhost be enough to determine the server
is a connecting to remote server rather than running a local instance of
a server?
I had an idea that I might be able to create new states for the server
called org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_DISCONNECTED, org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_CONNECTING,
org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_CONNECTED, org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_DISCONNECTING
and use these instead of the org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_STARTING,
org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_STARTED, org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_STOPPING
and org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_STOPPED in the case of a
remote server. Checks for these states would be added to the ones
of the start server and in the case of the remote server we will progress
through this 2nd set of states.
What I would like to hear from you is;
i)
Is this a
good idea?
ii)
Would you have
a rough idea of how many places these states would be set and read?
iii)
Would there be many
complications to adding this new sequence of states?
iv)
Would a fix like
this be acceptable to you guys? If not can you suggest to me an alternate
way I might approach this?
Thank you for all your time and effort,
Mike Reidy.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev _______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev