Do you have anything planned around ServiceUI? I really use ServiceUI as a discovery mechanism to find services which export a UI that a user can interact with. What can happen at registration time, besides Entry specification to help with codebase where ServiceUI bits are at? Are you just relying on the “service” setup to include all of that detail, or is there something we can do, to wrap ServiceUI into the mechanism you are talking about here?
Gregg > On Sep 27, 2017, at 3:59 AM, Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > > Some updates on thoughts about OSGi: > > 1. In JGDMS, SafeServiceRegistrar (extends ServiceRegistrar), > ServiceDiscoveryManager and ProxyPreparer allow provisioning of > OSGi bundles for Jini services. > 2. SafeServiceRegistrar lookup results contain only instances of > java.lang.reflect.Proxy (implementing ServiceProxyAccessor, > ServiceCodebaseAccessor, ServiceAttributesAccessor) which a user > remarshalls and unmarshalls into their OSGi bundle provisioned > ClassLoader, prior to retrieving the actual service proxy using > ServiceProxyAccessor. > 3. As a result different service principals using identical proxy > codebases, needn't share a ClassLoader, addressing the trust > domain issue previously alluded to. > 4. There's no current mechanism to allow provisioning of a bundle for > a Registrar. > 5. Existing discovery providers accept ClassLoader arguments for > unmarshalling Registrar's. > 6. Existing Multicast responses allow for additional information to > be appended; a codebase resource for example. > 7. LookupLocator, LookupDiscovery and LookupLocatorDiscovery classes > don't utilise discovery providers ClassLoader arguments. > 8. Need to allow bundles to be provisioned for lookup services after > multicast discovery, by exposing discovery provider ClassLoader > arguments and allowing client to manage provisioning of bundle > into a ClassLoader, then passing that in during unicast discovery. > 9. Don't break backward compatiblity. > > Cheers, > > Peter. > > On 16/11/2016 4:18 PM, Dawid Loubser wrote: >> +1 for OSGi providing the best solution to the class resolution problem, >> though I think some work will have to be done around trust, as you say. >> >> >> On 16/11/2016 02:23, Peter wrote: >>> >>> The conventional alternatives will remain; the existing ClassLoader >>> isolation and the complexities surrounding multiple copies of the same or >>> different versions of the same classes interacting within the same jvm. >>> Maven will present a new alternative of maximum sharing, where different >>> service principals will share the same identity. >>> >>> Clearly, the simplest solution is to avoid code download and only use >>> reflection proxy's >>> >>> An inter process call isn't remote, but there is a question of how a >>> reflection proxy should behave when a subprocess is terminated. >>> >>> UndeclaredThrowableException seems appropriate. >>> >>> It would plug in via the existing ClassLoading RMIClassLoader provider >>> mechanism, it would be a client concern, transparent to the service or >>> server. >>> >>> The existing behaviour would remain default. >>> >>> So there can be multiple class resolution options: >>> >>> 1. Existing PrefferedClassProvider. >>> 2. Maven class resolution, where maximum class sharing exists. This may be >>> preferable in situations where there is one domain of trust, eg within one >>> corporation or company. Max performance. >>> 3. Process Isolation. Interoperation between trusted entities, where code >>> version incompatibilities may exist, because of separate development teams >>> and administrators. Each domain of trust has it's own process domain. Max >>> compatibility, but slower. >>> 4. OSGi. >>> >>> There may be occassions where simpler (because developers don't need to >>> understand ClassLoaders), slow, compatible and reliable wins over fast and >>> complex or broken. >>> >>> A subprocess may host numerous proxy's and codebases from one principal >>> trust domain (even a later version of River could be provisioned using >>> Maven). A subprocess would exist for each trust domain. So if there are >>> two companies, code from each remains isolated and communicates only using >>> common api. No unintended code versioning conflicts. >>> >>> This choice would not prevent or exclude other methods of communication, >>> the service, even if isolated within it's own process will still >>> communicate remotely over the network using JERI, JSON etc. This is >>> orthogonal to and independant of remote communication protocols. >>> >>> OSGi would of course be an alternative option, if one wished to execute >>> incompatible versions of libraries etc within one process, but different >>> trust domains will have a shared identity, again this may not matter >>> depending on the use case. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Peter. >>> >>> ESent from my Samsung device. >>> >
