Re: [infinispan-dev] Passing JCache remote manager propietary configuration options (ISPN-6438)

On 6 Apr 2016, at 16:57, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: > On 6 April 2016 at 15:01, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> -- >> Galder Zamarreño >> Infinispan, Red Hat >> >>> On 6 Apr 2016, at 12:29, Gustavo Fernandes <gustavo(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've been looking at [1] and the way I see it, there are two ways to solve this: >>> >>> 1. A key benefit of JCache/JCacheManager is that you can construct JCacheManager instances using standard APIs, e.g. calling Cachie.getCachingProvider().getCacheManager(...). One way to solve this issue would be if we exposed a propietary way to create an Infinispan remote JCacheManager, e.g. >>> >>> new org.infinispan.jcache.remote.JCacheManager(RemoteCacheManager) or >>> new org.infinispan.jcache.remote.JCacheManager(ConfigurationBuilder) >>> ...etc, or similar solutions >>> >>> The problem with this approach is that we force users to create JCacheManager instances using implementation detail APIs. >>> >>> 2. The only way you can pass in implementation specific configuration options to JCacheManager instances using standard APIs is via a Properties file. So, the other solution is to have the missing client configuration options available as being able to configure them via Properties. The main limitation here is that property values must be String values. According to Tristan, this could limit some security configuration for options that can be converted into String values. Looking at org.infinispan.client.hotrod.configuration.SslConfigurationBuilder, the only configuration option that might have such issue is passing in a javax.net.ssl.SSLContext instance, but I don't see the sslContext() method used anywhere...? The rest of SSL options take either a String or char[] so those would not be problematic. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> Regardless of JCache, I think a HotRod client should be configurable via properties only (this is needed for [2]) as described in [1], maybe we could introduce factories for non-String based configs? >> >> Interesting idea about using factories for non-String configs but not sure that will work? I mean, you'd provide the FQN of the factory class, which would be instantiated with reflection an an empty constructor. What about if that factory relied on some kind of initialization? IOW, if the thing you're building comes from something else? > > +1 to stick to use only properties for Hot Rod so I can embed them all > in configuration files for Hibernate OGM ;) > > In Hibernate it's common to allow passing such a factory within the > configuration Map. > If the value of the properties map is a String, then it's interpreted > as a FQN and started via reflection; if it's not a String it verifies > that it is an _instance_ of the required contract, and takes the > instance as is. So integrating frameworks can inject more complex > stuff by simple reference. Our standard configuration API also allows custom implementations that can be provided either as an instance or as a class name. Usually it's the actual implementation, not a factory. The limitation with JSR-107 is that we want it to work with Caching.getCachingProvider().getCacheManager(...), which can take in only a Properties instance and pass that to the cache manager. So far, we assumed all the Properties values must be Strings. However, it looks like Properties extends Hashtable<Object,Object>, so it should be possible to stick any object in there. The only gotcha is that the caller must use Properties.put(k, v) instead of Properties.setProperty(k, v).

> > That's for example how WildFly injects stuff into Hibernate ORM to use > in most cases; in some cases it still uses the "old style" approach of > defining a jndi lookup convention, but most such JNDI names area also > injected, if it's not injecting the "lookup strategy" by FQN: having > both gives you lots of flexibility. I also suggested JNDI, but I was quickly reminded that JNDI isn't always available, and we don't want to make it a required dependency. We could also have a singleton map for "injectables", and replace JNDI references with keys in our injectables map. Still, I'm always wary about static stuff, so I like the "hack" of storing non-String values in a Properties instance better. Cheers Dan > > Thanks, > Sanne > >> >> I don't know the SSLContext use case enough to know if your suggestion would work. Maybe @Tristan can chime in? >> >> Cheers, >> >>> >>> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPRK-16 >>> >>> >>> Gustavo >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-6438 >>> -- >>> Galder Zamarreño >>> Infinispan, Red Hat >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev