Op Di, 2014-02-18 om 21:27 -0500 skryf Dennis Reedy: > BTW, I respectfully don't agree with > > > Rio was just an awfully large and complicated bit of code to “start” with.
As a user of Rio, and being somewhat familiar with its internal workings, I also have to disagree with that statement. While there is if course no "public standard" that describes the contract of the Rio environment, it is itself very cleanly split between the specifications and the implementation. Furthermore, the domain-specific language language that describes deployments could easily be formalised as the basis of a standard, as it is independent of the implementation. I don't think there is any substantial effort involved in completely separating, and using as the basis of a "standard", the API / Specification / Configuration artifacts of Rio. Finally, though there are of course some complicated bits in something with this level of sophistication, the code base is not "awfully large" - certainly by my standards. I think that it's very exciting that Rio is being considered for standard inclusion in the River toolkit. It can only do both very well. As somebody who has written River (Jini) code without Rio, and then with, I would never even consider doing it without Rio (or something similar). Many others probably feel this way too. I do sometimes wonder about the practical future of the code-downloading model (not to mention strong typing) in the face of the massive JSON/HTTP onslaught, even though the world really needs it (they just don't know it yet :-) kind regards, - DAWID LOUBSER Systems Architect - Travellinck International Johannesburg, South Africa ------------------------------------------------------- mailto:da...@travellinck.com (E-Mail) http://www.travellinck.com (Web) xmpp:dawid.loub...@jabber.me (Jabber) xmpp:dawid.loub...@gmail.com (Google Talk, deprecated) skype:dawid.loubser (Skype) ------------------------------------------------------- Op Di, 2014-02-18 om 21:27 -0500 skryf Dennis Reedy: > Gregg, > > I think I stated earlier what I see as the primary issue here (and it seems > you're echoing the same thing): > > > >>>> I think most importantly, there is no specification for "containers" to > >>>> implement, no requirements. The first thing to do would be to define > >>>> what these are, then contributed implementations can appear, and > >>>> developers/deployers choose what implementation to use. > > > Lets start with that first. > > BTW, I respectfully don't agree with > > > Rio was just an awfully large and complicated bit of code to “start” with. > > Cheers > > Dennis > > On Feb 18, 2014, at 724PM, Gregg Wonderly <ge...@cox.net> wrote: > > > I’ll offer my observation from overheard discussions over the years, from a > > few, but varied Jini community members. But first, let me state that I am > > a pro Rio person (and Dennis I must apologize again for leaving it off of > > my slide at the Jini Community meeting in Europe). > > > > I’ve never used Rio in a deployment, but I’ve looked into it for a couple > > of different projects. My primary issue in my River deployments has always > > been delayed codebase downloads and proxy unmarshalling were needed because > > of network bandwidth restrictions, computer resource limitations and user > > interface speed to get my ServiceUI desktop to “display” all the icons. > > The large number of services that I deployed onto multiple machines, verses > > the few that anyone person would use. Would require deserialization of > > hundreds of proxies that would never be used. Windows restrictions on a > > handful of active sockets, max, would cause endpoints to “fail” to connect. > > There were all kinds of issues and I needed delayed unmarshalling to solve > > those issues. So, the solutions that I rolled into Jini 2.0/2.1 to solve > > these problems for me, provided some isolation from other things available > > in the community. > > > > Ultimately, I’ve been trying to push for a “container” specification for > > some time. My simple “startnow” project on java.net is where I’ve put most > > of the things that I’ve done to put things on top of Jini. The simple > > interface that Seven provides, is something that I think is a good start. > > > > My observation is that the community has stated in various conversations, > > that Rio was just an awfully large and complicated bit of code to “start” > > with. It is very powerful and very much an end to end solution to a lot of > > things, and that is what I understand people in the community to not want > > to “include” in their simple Jini services. > > > > Some of that probably comes from JavaEE experience or “knowledge” which > > makes them feel that Rio might just take them down the path of not being in > > control of much of anything and having to always have “the same” container > > for all their services when that might not be required. > > > > I am all about fixing things that need to be fixed, and standardizing > > things that as standards, don’t limit choices on evolving to better > > standards. > > > > That’s what we need to focus on. Because of the flexibility of River with > > so many endpoint implementations, flexible implementation details, etc., it > > is really an unfinished platform. There needs to be fewer “free” choices, > > and a lot more “refinement” of interfaces so that very specific issues are > > fixed for specific releases, but we can still evolve to create better and > > better experiences. > > > > These things have all been said before by members of this community. There > > are lots of experienced people here, and lots of people who have found > > “easier” ways to do things, because of the unfinished nature of the beast. > > > > We know, really need to start working on finishing things with solid > > limitations on choices where more choices just don’t make anything easier > > or more possible. > > > > Gregg > > > > On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Feb 18, 2014, at 1236PM, Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Hi Dennis: > >>> > >>> Discussion intertwined… > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Greg. > >>> > >>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 1113AM, Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Dennis: > >>>>> > >>>>> I’ll bite twice: > >>>>> > >>>>> - Your offer to contribute Rio may have been before my time as a > >>>>> committer, because I don’t recall the discussion (mind you I’m also at > >>>>> a loss to recall what I had for dinner last night ;-). > >>>> > >>>> November 28th, 2013. Email thread entitled "River Container (was > >>>> surrogate container)". You responded asking questions about code > >>>> provenance. Snippet from the thread: > >>>> > >>>> I see it’s Apache licensed. Ideally we’d have a CCLA in place from all > >>>> the corporate contributors, but I personally don’t know if that’s > >>>> required if the contributed code is ASL2. We might have to consult more > >>>> experienced Apache people. > >>>> > >>>> Greg. > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to find out what would need to be done here. If anyone could > >>>> help, that would be great. I have no problems donating Rio to the River > >>>> project. River would get a mature project, with tons of real-world > >>>> application of River put into it. I think it would do River good, and > >>>> also Rio. > >>> > >>> > >>>> If not part of the project I think River should at least reference it as > >>>> a notable project that can really speed developer adoption of River. > >>>> > >>> > >>> OK, let’s assume that you’re willing to contribute Rio, and that the > >>> River community is in favour. I’ll start a separate thread to discuss > >>> the steps. > >>> > >>> And we should go ahead and add a reference to Rio on the River site in > >>> the meantime. While we’re at it, any other projects that should be > >>> referenced? The “notable projects” idea is a very good one. > >> > >> Great! > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> How was River unwelcoming, and do you feel the same situation exists > >>>>> now? > >>>> > >>>>> - Could you give a little detail on why you think container projects > >>>>> should be outside River? Is it just development stickiness, or > >>>>> something else? > >>>> > >>>> It's not container projects in general. It's projects that were never > >>>> accepted as *the* way to do something and now want to be included as > >>>> defacto support into River. I see no reason that your contribution > >>>> should be considered over more mature implementations at this point > >>>> (Rio, Seven,...). I think most importantly, there is no specification > >>>> for "containers" to implement, no requirements. The first thing to do > >>>> would be to define what these are, then contributed implementations can > >>>> appear, and developers/deployers choose what implementation to use. > >>>> > >>> > >>> OK, fair point. No specifications, I agree with. FWIW, the container I > >>> wrote uses the Service Starter conventions, which is why it’s able to use > >>> Reggie unmodified. > >> > >> Right, as does Rio. Any service that can be started with River's Service > >> Starter starts out of the box with Rio. > >> > >>> The only thing added is the packaging into a single archive file. So, I > >>> hereby propose that we adopt a service archive packaging standard that > >>> looks like the one in the container (discussion will no doubt follow). > >> > >> You can propose this, at this point I dont know what it looks like or > >> whether it will be the way we move forward. > >> > >>> > >>> To be clear, though, I’m not suggesting that river-container should be > >>> “the” way, just “a” way. > >> > >> > >> Then it should be outside of the main River project, and referenced as a > >> notable project. > >> > >> > >>> And there was no small amount of real-world application experience that > >>> went into river-container. > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I’ll expand on why I think River needs a container desperately: > >>>>> Basically there is no way for a developer to use Jini or River as it > >>>>> stands. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with your statement above, just use Rio :) > >>> > >>> Can I at least get you to agree that there should be at least one > >>> container that’s part of the River project? Possibly more than one, that > >>> serve different targets? > >>> > >>> I recall that years ago, on Jini-users, John McClain commented that the > >>> Jini team didn’t want to sanction a single style of deploying services. > >>> While I suspect that logic still holds, it’s pretty clear to me that the > >>> core project needs to have at least “a” container. > >> > >> And it does, ServiceStarter. > >> > >> Dennis >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
