<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Richard,<br>
<br>
On 11/24/2010 11:18 AM, Richard Opalka wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p> We'll then have the records' management configuration,
which is also something configured at server level
(WSMemoryBufferRecorder, WSLogRecorder, etc. currently in
stack-specific-jboss-beans.xml).<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't like this records management framework<br>
(don't take it personal Alessio, please ;) ).<br>
I didn't notice on our forums or from our customers<br>
they use it (I might be wrong of course)?<br>
<br>
For now I'd say this is NICE TO HAVE FEATURE once we're done<br>
with AS 7 integration work and we're passing TCK6 with it.<br>
We can keep it in mind a provide integration hooks to our<br>
JBossWS API/SPI so it's easily implementable in the future ;)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
yeah, for sure this is not the main focus of the discussion, nor a
top priority thing, it was just an example of something whose
configuration is to be at server level and not at deployment level.
Regarding liking it or not... we can think about improving it :-P In
the end, anyway, this is one of the things that could serve as a
starting point / hook for a decent JON integration... (you know
productivity, if only we find some time for getting back to that
again..)<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p> Besides the easy things above, we should probably allow
for pre-configuring a given application server instance with
default endpoints (perhaps clients too in the future),
meaning users can specify an endpoint configuration and have
that endpoint included as part of the application server,
the same way they would have had if they deployed an archive
with the corresponding endpoint declaration [2].</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't see real world usecases here.<br>
If you'll provide some we can start discussing it.<br>
<br>
For now I'd say again this is NICE TO HAVE FEATURE once we're done<br>
with AS 7 integration work and we're passing TCK6 with it.<br>
We can keep it in mind a provide integration hooks to our<br>
JBossWS API/SPI so it's easily implementable in the future ;)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This would both be a proof that a proper separation of concerns is
in place and come for free once the endpoint service is ready.
Basically you have endpoints configurable from the domain.<br>
Regarding usecases, for sure there're cases requiring the endpoint
creation to be a service (Thomas Diesler has been mentioning that to
me for his osgi work, for instance). We can for sure delay the
domain part of this work, but that's just a thin wrapper around the
actual work (providing the endpoint service) ;-)<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p><strong>API REVIEW</strong></p>
<p style="min-height: 8pt; height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"> </p>
<p>In the process of revisiting the JBossWS SPI, we need to
properly split the current jbossws-spi project contents
into:<br>
- a set of classes/interfaces required for proper
abstraction of jbossws components (pretty much what we have
today, 2 stacks, perhaps multiple supported target
container[3], ...) and to have a defined interface towards
other related jboss projects (EJB3 for instance)<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is what we have today. But I definitely agree this needs
further/proper cleanup!<br>
BTW there's EJB3 integration review on my plate. Hopefully this
will be fixed with AS7 integration.<br>
</blockquote>
Yes. This is one of the reason I'd like to get started with this
jbws 4 work asap, Carlo is needing any changes to the interface with
WS well before AS 7 goes Beta1 (as EJB3 is meant for Beta1 as far as
I understood)<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p> - a public API meant for actual user consumption, which
would end up in a AS7 module visible to user deployments<br>
The latter is going to include the classes/interfaces the
domain model maps to (ws config, records stuff,
service/endpoint/deployment basic stuff like endpoint class,
publish address, ...) and what's required for tooling
(wsconsume / wsprovide Ant tasks, command classes, etc.)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, we'll discuss this later.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p style="min-height: 8pt; height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"> </p>
<p><strong>CONTAINER INTEGRATION</strong></p>
<p style="min-height: 8pt; height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"> </p>
<p>For integrating into AS7, we need to rethink the way
jbossws handles deployments in terms of services (which are
one of the key elements of AS7). At the end of the day, what
the ws subsystem is supposed to do is providing facilities
for starting/stopping webservice endpoints (and clients).
Given the management requests of AS7, the domain model, etc.
it's time to think about that as something not directly tied
to the deployment process only, but generally available as a
service instead. Other services in the application server
might depend on or simply make use of this service [2]. The
deployers (DeploymentUnitProcessors in AS7) should just be
"clients" of this service.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is good point for another discussion.<br>
For the beginning I'd say AS 7 service<br>
is something similar to AS 6 deployers.<br>
</blockquote>
What I'm saying is that AS7 deployers are not going to do all the
things they used to do in AS6. Part of the work is not actually up
to the deployers and needs to be factored out to a more generic
service / set of services everybody can use, regardless of deployers
being used or not.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
We've been leveraging AS 6 deployers<br>
to call our DAs. I'd say for initial AS 7<br>
integration we should leverage AS 7 service for that purpose.<br>
Once this is done (and we'll be more familiar with AS 7
architecture)<br>
we can get it to the next level.<br>
</blockquote>
Well, a good part of the changes in AS7 is in this service way of
thinking. I'd like to get to a good design with that, then we can
think about possible milestones to get there. Please note that
anything not really make use of the AS facilities properly is not
going to be pulled upstream and this is a major release both for AS
and JBWS, so it's a chance for reviewing the design.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p> To a certaint extent this way of thinking about the
container integration fits with what has been done in JAXWS
2.2 Endpoint API and -for instance- the way an Apache CXF
endpoint is started. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
My 2c:<br>
* This won't work for JAXRPC.<br>
* nice idea, but we need to discuss it in more details <br>
(i.e. how to do it for JAXWS endpoints (don't forget about EJB3
JAXWS endpoints here))<br>
</blockquote>
please do not get me wrong, I'm not saying I want to directly use
the Endpoint API. I'm just saying that we can see this similarly, we
need to think about the deployment process in terms of a) something
strictly related to setting up the container for the ws deployment,
b) actually creating the endpoint and connecting it to the
container. Theoretically speaking (b) is pretty much what is going
to the service. This said, for sure we need to deal with the
details, but that comes after agreeing on a vision.<br>
<br>
Regarding JAXRPC, it's legacy stuff, so it's acceptable to treat
that differently if we need to (meaning no domain / public available
service & api for that). Just the "minimum" required for
certification.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p>We should be able to parse and digest an endpoint
configuration, properly setup the transport layer and then
simply trigger the endpoint deployment.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, we'll probably need to read proprietary SOAP stack DDs. Maybe
another candidate for API?<br>
</blockquote>
yes, that's what I've mentioned later in the WS Services section.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p> Currently (AS 5/6) the ws deployment goes through many ws
deployers, most of which wrap jbossws "deployment aspects"
(DA). Those can probably be splitted into few groups:<br>
1) DAs dealing with figuring out / processing basic and
container related informations (context root, url pattern,
endpoint address, endpoint name)<br>
2) DAs converting information coming from merged metadata
(descriptors + annotations) into the jbossws-spi metadata<br>
3) DAs dealing with the transport (creating / modifying the
jbossweb metadata for ws endpoints)<br>
4) DAs dealing with ws stack internals (for native: UMDM
creating, eventing, rm, eager init, ... for cxf: jbossws-cxf
descriptor creation, bus creation, ...)<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Correct! Nice recapitulation and grouping ;)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p> Some of these are most probably meant for remaining part
of the deployers (probably 1,2,3), the rest (probably 4) is
actually going to become part of the services providing
facilities for starting/stopping an endpoint.<br>
The jbossws-spi should be seen as the interface for feeding
the ws services that deal with endpoints.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Definitely!<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p>While the AS7 / domain management system is going to simply
make use of the public api part of jbossws-spi, the
deployers are probably going to process all the metadata
information coming from annotations and deployment
descriptors into the jbossws-spi metadata and then feed the
endpoint creation service. Deployers will also deal with /
set required dependencies on other services involved in the
deployment phase, for instance the web server service (which
for instance will be required to properly create a context
for the endpoint(s)).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
We'll discuss this in more details once we'll dive into AS 7
integration ;)<br>
</blockquote>
Sure, this was written here to convey the idea of what should be up
to the deployers and what should be in the service instead.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECE668.1040506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p style="min-height: 8pt; height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"> </p>
<p><strong>WS SERVICES</strong></p>
<p style="min-height: 8pt; height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"> </p>
<p>What is then required to be a (WS) service? Apart from some
obvious facilities like the endpoint registry and a server
configuration provider service, the main service is the one
meant for starting/stopping endpoints.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
OK, makes sense.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p> We need to carefully define a stable interface for this
service, so that it can be maintained without much changes
in the future. This mainly implies establishing the inputs
for creating/starting an endpoint, basically the metadata
carrying the required information for that. Ideally that
should already be covered by what we have in jbossws-spi,
plus stack specific configuration stuff.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I like it. U're becoming perfectionist like me Alessio :)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4CECDE10.20405@redhat.com" type="cite">
<div class="jive-rendered-content">
<p> For CXF that's everything that can be included in the
jbossws-cxf.xml / cxf.xml, for Native it's what comes from
the union of the info in endpoint configurations (configName
/ configFile...) and other additional optional descriptors
(e.g. the jboss-wsse-*.xml).<br>
For the sake of practically supporting future extensions /
changes, the stuff above should most probably be modelled as
AS7 extensions, each coming with its own parser bound to a
given xsd namespace. For supporting advanced usecases (iow
WS-*), the domain model should probably simply accept a
pointer to additional xml configuration (beyond what's in
the basic user API which is part of jbossws-spi, etc. - see
above). Depending on the default namespace of the provided
xml, the proper parser (coming from the installed ws stack)
would be used and the domain enriched with the provided
information for creating endpoint(s).<br>
At the end of the day, most (if not all) the information is
the Bus (for jbossws-cxf) / the UMDM (for jbossws-native).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is too low level. In general it makes sense to me.<br>
But we'll discuss this when we'll start/be working on it.<br>
</blockquote>
OK<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Alessio<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss</pre>
</body>
</html>