Hi Peter
It is great that you pointed out lookup locator issue in firewall and its
potential solution. It would be great to see the developments in River in which
they really focus to have lookup discovery beyond the firewall without
requiring port forward and other demanding packet filtering techniques. Once
this obstacle in River is crossed, I am pretty sure that there will be new
paradigm shift in IoT or ICT technology. This technology has a tremendous
potential. However, I never understand why River community never try to bring
this issue on the first place. River in Internet would be the most wonderful
solutions for millions of users around the world. Please think, discuss and try
to work on it. It would be a great news for us.
RegardsBishnu
Bishnu Prasad Gautam
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:37:25 +1000
> From: j...@zeus.net.au
> Subject: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
> To: dev@river.apache.org
> CC: si...@qcg.nl
>
>
>
>
> Sim,
>
> I'd like to see the project return to the days where we had a number of
> active committers working together on the same goals.
>
> I've got a project on github, where I've continued work that was
> controversial, I'd like to bring this work back to the project if possible.
> It has some minor breaking changes, but if backward compatibility was
> essential, it could be accommodated.
>
> Changes:
> * New secure discovery providers, including https among others, including
> added https protocol support for LookupLocator. However since firewalls may
> not allow ipv6 multicast packets through, DNS-SD would be useful.
> * IPv6 Discovery, global and local groups.
> * Discovery V2 support added to LookupLocator's getRegistrar method.
> * Updated encryption ciphers, removal of insecure ones.
> * Deprecation of ProxyTrust et al.
> * New default methods added to ServiceRegistrar to allow establising trust
> with a service, prior to obtaining a service proxy, or Entry's (works with
> both maven codebase provisioning and traditional codebase downloads).
> * Input validation for untrusted serial data.
> * META-INF/permissions.perm files list permissions required by codebase,
> accessible from ClassLoader using mixin interface.
>
> I recall you had a need for a SocketFactory in LookupLocator, at that time
> LookupLocator only used discovery v1, which was deprecated, I'd like to
> include a way to enable SocketFactory support in discovery V2. Note that
> LookupLocator isn't serialized during discovery.
>
> While the River codebase was a little difficult to understand at first, I
> find it's quite easy to work with now.
>
> While I'm a critic of Rivers flaws, addressing th em is straight forward, the
> greatest challenge is convincing everyone that flaws exist, or that they need
> addressing, there's still plenty of good stuff left worth saving.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung device.
>
> Include original message
> ---- Original message ----
> From: Peter <j...@zeus.net.au>
> Sent: 01/07/2016 04:35:16 pm
> To: dev@river.apache.org <dev@river.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Sim,
>
> These are all good questions we need to consider.
>
> I like the model of micro services where each service is responsible for
> implementing its own back end persistence and state. Do you consider a
> microservice to be web based?
>
> I have an implementation of discovery using multicast ipv6. However for
> firewalls with limited open ports such as https over ipv6, we have JERI https
> endpoints, but no discovery, DNS-SD is a good discovery alternative waiting
> to be implemented.
>
> For my own environment I will be adopting ipv6 , the global address space and
> autoconfiguration solve many problems that users experience with ipv4 today.
>
> I admit the locked down api caused me frustration, but I think it's clear now
> that we need a process for managing api evolution.
>
> Complexity - The proxy preparation api tries to determine trust after
> downloading untrusted code and deserialization of unverified data. As gadget
> attacks demonstrate, too little too late at great complexity. This was an
> attempt to bolt security onto the existing lookup service.
>
> JERI is good, method constraints are good, proxy trust is obsolete. River's
> current ssl and https JERI endpoints need to be brought up to date as they're
> no longer secure. I've already done this work externally, it can be donated
> when appropriate for the project.
>
> If we address security issues, we can provide a secure alternative to RMI
> Oracle has chosen 'whack a mole' security for Serialization, rather than
> address some fundamental design flaws with ObjectInputStream, for this
> reason, authentication of the source must occur prior to accepting serial
> data. Despite common belief, white listing isn't a completely secure
> solution and adds conplexity as it's too fine grained.
>
> For multi language support, this would limit the type system, but then,
> there's a lot that can be done with strings, primitive types and byte arrays.
> This doesn't have to limit java service types, I think language support
> should be something determined during lookup, so we don't limit the type
> systems of more powerful languages to primitives.
>
> Looking at most Entry's used for lookup, most fields are strings and
> integers. If you look at the way lookup searches are implemented, an entry
> is represented by a string name and each field is a tuple name value pair.
>
> I think a ground up redesign of the lookup service, would address language
> compatibility as well as complexity and security.
>
> In other words, recognise the need for a lookup & registration protocol, as
> well as discovery, after that, the service & client should be able to
> negotiate whatever rpc protocol they have in common and to do that, we'll
> also need a connection negotiation protocol. We could write specifications
> for these protocols. This way we could allow any language/ platform to
> register and provide services. The code for lookup would not be downloaded
> as Reggie is now, it would be protocol, rather than proxy based. This would
> also fit well with IoT.
>
> Meanwhile we can still support existing java based services.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Peter.
>
> Sent from my Samsung device.
>
> Include original message
> ---- Original message ----
> From: Simon IJskes - QCG <si...@qcg.nl>
> Sent: 30/06/2016 06:22:30 pm
> To: dev@river.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
>
> If you solve the 'barrier' of the service discovery, do you also want to
> provide universal access to the java services in the form of microservices?
>
> It is doable to take any 'more used' service discovery solution and use
> this as the river discovery. To introduce a level of abstraction with
> the same primitives as the current river discovery mechanism offers.
>
> River would then have adapted a more common discovery mechanism.
>
> Next thing that we should decide, is how far do we go into universality.
> I see univeral type systems, different serialisation plugins on the horizon.
>
> The biggest showstopper for me was the API compatibility. In order to
> make any progress we need a more agile process for modifing the API
>
> If we leave compatibility behind us, we could ask our selfs, what
> benefit are we providing for the users? What can we introduce that does
> not duplicate what is already in the market For a java developer, i
> think there is no need to convince, they can see benefits in just having
> a java API to program against. We need to think about the environment
> where java receives a lot of 'non-love', how we can create a 'whow, java
> isn't all that bad, look at that easy solution' experience.
>
> I think that river lost the spot it could have, as a java only solution
> to JSON, XMLRPC, SOAP, etc libraries for java. From a helicopter view,
> what does it do? Whe provide secure RPC, with discovery and scaling. And
> we make it hard to use.
>
> G. Simon
>
>
> On 30-06-16 05:37, Peter wrote:
> > Currently with River, you need java to participate. Other languages can
> > provide services, but you need a jvm to participate.
> >
> > Most of discovery is language agnostic, so any language can participate in
> > discovery.
> >
> > The major limitation for other languages is the lookup service. Security
> > issues and complexity also relate to the lookup service.
> >
> > My thoughts are that a lookup service that performs search and
> > registration, but provides a language independent and secure means of
> > contacting service providers would be beneficial.
> >
> > Anyone interested in discussing further?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Peter.
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Samsung device.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
