Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] Remote Server Support


Hi,

Sorry, I was refering to a couple adapters for IBM servers that are not currently open source. There are other teams besides my own, but the ones that I am referring to are available in WebSphere Application Server Toolkit and Rational Application Developer.

Thanks,
Tim deBoer
WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada Ltd.
(905) 413-3503  (tieline 969)
deboer@xxxxxxxxxx



Justin Chen <yung-chang.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/03/2005 07:44 PM

Please respond to
yung-chang.chen and "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





Hi Tim,

What are the non-generic server adapters support remote servers outside
of WTP?

Thanks,
Justin

Timothy Deboer wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> 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
>
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx
>
> *"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 “localhost” 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=”true” 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 2^nd 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
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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


Back to the top