[jboss-dev] Bind interfaces coming from ServiceBindingManager

[Brian Stansberry]

David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On 04/23/2009 05:37 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> I think the binding interface for services that open sockets should be 
>> coming from the ServiceBindingManager, same as the ports do. Currently 
>> most services use ${jboss.bind.address} to inject the address directly 
>> into the consuming service. But that precludes a management tool using 
>> SBM as a central configuration point for all address/port usage in the 
>> server.[1] Currently it's mostly only useful for the ports; if admins 
>> wanted to use something other than ${jboss.bind.address} for a 
>> particular service they'd have to go elsewhere in the tool to 
>> configure that.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Good idea.
> 
> On this topic, it might be a Nice Thing to have a custom XML type for 
> service binding configuration, so rather than saying:
> 
> <!-- Remote classloading service -->
> <bean class="org.jboss.services.binding.ServiceBindingMetadata">
>     <property name="serviceName">jboss:service=WebService</property>
>     <property name="port">8083</property>
> </bean>
> 
> You could say:
> 
> <declare-service-binding xmlns="urn:jboss:binding-manager:1.0">
>    <service name="jboss:service=WebService"/>
>    <bind address="${jboss.bind.address}" port="8083"/>
> </declare-service-binding>
> 
> or whatever.  And instead of injecting the value with bean tags like this:
> 
> <value>
>     <value-factory bean="ServiceBindingManager" method="getStringBinding">
>         <parameter>UnifiedInvokerConnector</parameter>
>         <parameter>${host}</parameter>
>     </value-factory>
> </value>
> 
> you could have e.g.
> 
> <string-binding-value xmlns="urn:jboss:binding-manager:1.0" 
> service-name="UnifiedInvokerConnector" input="${host}"/>
> 
> Then if (and when) the class name/layout of the service binding data 
> changes (and judging from the differences between what's in Branch_5_x 
> and http://www.jboss.org/community/docs/DOC-9038 I'd say we've already 
> had a few such changes), then the same files will continue to work.
> 
> Basically, while using xmlns="urn:jboss:bean-deployer:2.0" can be useful 
> for users to assemble their applications and for certain internal 
> applications, we should not be using this as a configuration file format 
> since it exposes implementation details of the underlying services, 
> which then makes it tough for us to change said services.
> 

Good idea. https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-6829

Fortunately, the diffs between that design wiki page and the current 
stuff happened before 5.0.0.GA. But your point is well taken.

-- 
Brian Stansberry
Lead, AS Clustering
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
brian.stansberry at redhat.com