I have been looking at making our OSGi HttpService implementation
compliant with the specification  (in the context of ). One of the
things that this spec prescribes is the ability to register servlets
with an alias directly off the root of the web server. So for example
you would call
HttpService.registerService("/svlt", myServlet, null)
in this case the servlet would have to appear at http://localhost:8080/svlt
Previously our HttpService implementation would put the servlet on
http://localhost:8080/httpservice/svlt instead, but this is not
compliant with the spec.
Would there be any issues with such a change? For example, are there
certain contexts that users should be prevented from registering at? Or
is there a security impact?
I have made this change in the following pull request
I've been working $subject in order to help support Thomas Diesler's
request for AS7-3694. The gist of this request is to add deployment
unit processing (DUP) configuration as children of the deployment
resource itself. Thomas' OSGi use case is one place where this would be
used. I expect HASingleton deployment will be another.
WIP is at . I'm looking for feedback. :)
What I've done is based on what Thomas did at . What I want to do is
move from the generic key/value pairs in that patch to a more formally
describable management API. Instead of:
<property name="start.policy" value="DEFERRED"/>
It would be something analogous to how a profile configuration is done:
The existing Extension API already has the hooks to support this.
Extensions can register xml parsers for children of the <deployment>
element and can register management resources to act as children of the
/deployment=foo.war resource as well. Several subsystems already take
advantage of the latter. Until now the former has been an unimplemented
API. The commit at  implements it.
A couple things giving me some concern:
1) The above xml:
Nicer would be something like:
I need to figure out if I can do some tricks with the parsing to allow
that to happen.
2) The structure of the resource tree. We already support resources like
Subsystems register resources like those to expose metrics. The commit
at  uses that same tree. When subsystems could now register child
resources to the deployment=* resource, they could include both runtime
stuff and configuration stuff.
I'm not sure that mixing the two is ideal, although it's what we do for
the regular subsystem resources in the profile. I'm vaguely concerned
that if someday the configuration that subsystems choose to expose via
this mechanism gets complex, the mixing of metrics with configuration in
the same tree will start to break down.
Comments are appreciated.
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
Has anyone given much thought to providing more diagnostics when things go wrong during deployment.
For example, I recently encountered a problem with an EAR deployment that failed silently.
A thread dump revealed that it was stuck at the wait in org.jboss.as.ee.component.BasicComponent.waitForComponentStart().
I eventually figured out that there was a problem in my jboss-ejb3.xml file, but there were no clues to go on at all.
Another potential issue with this particular problem is that it's not possible to perform a regular server shutdown once it's in the state above. A "kill -9" is required.
I have a sample project that demonstrates this BTW.
Using STS 3.1 with JBOSS AS7.1.1 final. Right clicking on application and
selected Run On Server. Gives 404 error. The same process works fine for
Glassfish server. Checked standalone folder
The war is deployed.