RE: Lotj - languages other than java
Hi Patricia > > Do you have any ideas for how to recruit River developers? Even the > committers we have do not have enough time to finish an almost complete > release. Do you have scheme of recruitment with payment or complete volunteers? If it is volunteers, internship program would be the mos practical one. In that context it is quite possible to recruit developers in River by putting internship programs who can work together with active committers or developers in River project. If you open internship program, I can also send my students to work together online with active members of River project. I think this is the most practical solution if they need to work as volunteers. In the beginning we can start from a small scale and once someone is ready to contribute enough from the internship, then we can scale out with more numbers and in this way, the community would be increase. Let me know if you are interested about it. RegardsBishnu
Re: Lotj - languages other than java
On 7/4/2016 8:33 PM, Bishnu Gautam wrote: 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. Do you have any ideas for how to recruit River developers? Even the committers we have do not have enough time to finish an almost complete release.
RE: Lotj - languages other than java
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 > Sent: 01/07/2016 04:35:16 pm > To: 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
Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
See https://attic.apache.org/ for an introduction. The question I am raising is whether River is viable as an Apache project, not whether it is a valuable body of code. Your second paragraph is exactly my point. Apache brings some good stuff to its projects in the form of licensing with carefully controlled provenance and signed, tested releases. The downside is a process that is incompatible with Github, and some bureaucracy around the release process. If that is not currently the right trade-off for River the best thing to do is to move to the attic. Any individual, or group of individuals, can download the code and use it any way they like that is compatible with Apache's license, which allows a lot. In particular, people who agree on a direction can start their own Github repository based on the River code. They do have to preserve some notices and make it clear that they have modified the code. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 for details. Patricia On 7/4/2016 7:49 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: I am just not that familiar with Apache policy. However, river is a real, functional, deployed in use platform. I certainly agree that there is deadlock at this point in terms of the people and process. However, I am not sure that an attic is the right place for a well grounded and fielded technology. While the community might not be able to move ahead along a clear roadmap, there is still support from the community for the technology. Maybe a move to github would help to break things loose? Open up the development and release process more? Right now things are hung up in part on Apache process. Maybe Apache is just not the right place at this time for this technology? Thanks, Bryan On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: I think it is time to raise on the user list moving River to the attic. There is no sign of progress on a release. What interest there is in development seems to be going in different directions. Using portions of River code in other projects would still be feasible with it in the attic, but there would be no need for a PMC, and board reports. Patricia On 7/4/2016 6:44 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote: ... But then again, there are a lot of people reading this, and a big part of them having no interest at all in incompatible improvements, and i see no other option than leaving them behind, with a jini compatible maintenance release. This will certainly tear the river community apart, or at least cause a lot of friction. So when i see only the two of us, moving in a new direction, i can't help feeling, what is the use of it all. G. Simon
Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
I am just not that familiar with Apache policy. However, river is a real, functional, deployed in use platform. I certainly agree that there is deadlock at this point in terms of the people and process. However, I am not sure that an attic is the right place for a well grounded and fielded technology. While the community might not be able to move ahead along a clear roadmap, there is still support from the community for the technology. Maybe a move to github would help to break things loose? Open up the development and release process more? Right now things are hung up in part on Apache process. Maybe Apache is just not the right place at this time for this technology? Thanks, Bryan On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > I think it is time to raise on the user list moving River to the attic. > > There is no sign of progress on a release. What interest there is in > development seems to be going in different directions. Using portions of > River code in other projects would still be feasible with it in the attic, > but there would be no need for a PMC, and board reports. > > Patricia > > On 7/4/2016 6:44 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote: > ... > >> But then again, there are a lot of people reading this, and a big part >> of them having no interest at all in incompatible improvements, and i >> see no other option than leaving them behind, with a jini compatible >> maintenance release. This will certainly tear the river community apart, >> or at least cause a lot of friction. So when i see only the two of us, >> moving in a new direction, i can't help feeling, what is the use of it >> all. >> >> G. Simon >> >> >> >>
Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
I think it is time to raise on the user list moving River to the attic. There is no sign of progress on a release. What interest there is in development seems to be going in different directions. Using portions of River code in other projects would still be feasible with it in the attic, but there would be no need for a PMC, and board reports. Patricia On 7/4/2016 6:44 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote: ... But then again, there are a lot of people reading this, and a big part of them having no interest at all in incompatible improvements, and i see no other option than leaving them behind, with a jini compatible maintenance release. This will certainly tear the river community apart, or at least cause a lot of friction. So when i see only the two of us, moving in a new direction, i can't help feeling, what is the use of it all. G. Simon
Re: Lotj - languages other than java
On 04-07-16 10:37, Peter wrote: > 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'm sorry that i did not immediately answered your email. I think there needs to be more buy-in for change, than only the two of us. Also, the needs that i had for a easy communication system are covered by code developed in house. It allows for send and post, and async return of exceptions. A deviation from the river model. Maybe we can restart as a universal library for safe-RMI. With easy options for connections to and from known (or discovered by outside means) endpoints, IPv6, poking through UPNP and NAT firewalls, multi-homed host capable (without -D options on the command line). Modular addable lookup services, discovery, identity, locking, tspaces, etc. But at least a system with a very low knowledge threshold, and small jar footprint to get things working. We could use a more modern declarative system for specifying security needs, so that later we could create adapters for in and outbound rpc protocols with a bigger market reach. But then again, there are a lot of people reading this, and a big part of them having no interest at all in incompatible improvements, and i see no other option than leaving them behind, with a jini compatible maintenance release. This will certainly tear the river community apart, or at least cause a lot of friction. So when i see only the two of us, moving in a new direction, i can't help feeling, what is the use of it all. G. Simon
Re: Lotj - languages other than java
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 Sent: 01/07/2016 04:35:16 pm To: 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 wo
