[jboss-as7-dev] NPE in POST_MODULE processors

Wed Aug 15 09:03:48 EDT 2012

On 08/15/2012 02:25 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>
> On 15/08/2012, at 9:32 PM, Thomas Diesler <thomas.diesler at jboss.com 
> <mailto:thomas.diesler at jboss.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08/15/2012 11:20 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/08/2012, at 6:59 PM, Thomas Diesler <thomas.diesler at jboss.com 
>>> <mailto:thomas.diesler at jboss.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Why would the OSGI bundle not be able to resolve, is it because 
>>>> is waiting for another OSGI bundle to be installed?
>>>>
>>>> This is by virtue of the API - BundleContext.install() does not 
>>>> resolve the bundle. As the method name suggests, it just installs 
>>>> the bundle.
>>>>
>>>> In the hot-deployment case it is debatable whether bundle 
>>>> resolution and later bundle activation should be attempted or not. 
>>>> By design, the order of bundle deployment is not the responsibility 
>>>> of the user but that of the framework. For a complex graph of 
>>>> interdependent bundles the user cannot possibly be asked to deploy 
>>>> them in the "right order". Instead the API allows to INSTALL the 
>>>> complete set (i.e. make the metadata available to the resolver) and 
>>>> later activate the bundles as needed. There are other triggers for 
>>>> bundle resolution too (e.g. resource access)
>>>>
>>>> We currently do resolve/activate during DUP processing on a trial 
>>>> basis. For a bundle that only has dedependencies on already 
>>>> installed bundles the resolve/activation works fine and the 
>>>> services become available. I guess this is the expected hot-deploy 
>>>> behaviour. A bundle that cannot resolve - for various reasons, one 
>>>> being the user says so - we dont attempt to start the bundle 
>>>> either. It would still run through all remaining DUPs but does not 
>>>> have a module attached.
>>>
>>> This sounds very non-deterministic. Just to clarify, are you saying 
>>> that if the user has a complex bundle deployment with lots of 
>>> inter-dependencies on startup some may be resolved and some won't, 
>>> and this may change on subsequent startups depending on the order in 
>>> which they start?
>> Yes, this is a long outstanding issue [AS7-378 
>> <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-378>]. I still have no guarantee 
>> that all bundles in a given set have been INSTALLED (in OSGi 
>> terminology) / have completed the Phase.REGISTER phase (in AS7 
>> terminology) when the one bundle hits the BundleResolveProcessor. The 
>> framework records the persistent bundle state and on restart it is a 
>> requirement that all persistent bundles reach their respective target 
>> state for successful framework initialization. There is a little more 
>> detail to it and I'd be more than happy to work with you to find a 
>> consistent solution. We can take up this topic in another osgi 
>> specific thread if you like.
>
> That would be good. It will probably be a long running thread, but 
> this is something that I think we really need to sort out.

Thanks. I'd ping you late Aug when I get back from holiday. We could 
start with a short call where I can fill you in on the details.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Non-OSGi deployments that use jboss-modules metadata to define 
>>>> their dependencies (i.e. Dependencies clause in the manifest) have 
>>>> that problem too, but worse. A complex system of interdependent 
>>>> module deployments is likely not manageable because of this 
>>>> ordering issue. Even if the user gets the ordering right the first 
>>>> time, on server restart the notion of deployment order is lost and 
>>>> very likely initial deployments will fail with no osgi involved. 
>>>> Granted that this describes a use case that is not intended to be 
>>>> used for user deployments.
>>>
>>> No, JBoss modules uses MSC services to resolve the dependencies. At 
>>> container start all deployments are now run as part of the boot ops, 
>>> so as long as all deployments are present this will always work. We 
>>> do need a more specified way of saying "Don't start this deployment 
>>> until another deployment is done", but this is mainly for things 
>>> like EJB's, not for class loading.
>> Considering use case: moduleA depends on moduleB. On restart both 
>> deployments are processed in parallel. Even with 100 other 
>> deployments in between it is guaranteed that moduleA wont run into 
>> "missing service on next phase" error because the module service for 
>> B has not been installed? If so I take back the above prediction on 
>> restart, but still hold the unmanageable claim because ordering is 
>> delegated to the user (i.e. he must get it right the first time).
>>
>
> EE deployments generally don't have 100 other deployment dependencies. 
> If they are complicated the user can simply stop the server and dump 
> them all into the deployments directory, or deploy them in a composite 
> op. Either way, it is deterministic, and it will fail hard on error, 
> it will not just proceed with reduced functionality if something is 
> missing.  There is definitely still functionality that could be added 
> here though, such as the ability to wait for another deployment before 
> proceeding, rather than simply failing if it is not present.
The fail if not present is my concern if the missing deployment is part 
of the same set.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > the classic one is deployment of JDBC drivers that have an OSGI 
>>>> manifest
>>>>
>>>> We already removed the hack that disables OSGi for this case. The 
>>>> JDBC driver *is* an OSGi bundle because it contains valid OSGi 
>>>> metadata. It gets processed as such and should work as expected. 
>>>> All DUP processing is identical as before except the way module 
>>>> dependencies are computed and how the Module service is created. 
>>>> The only case where an OSGi bundle gets treated as a library jar is 
>>>> when it is located in an EAR/lib directory. Bundles contained in 
>>>> EARs are otherwise processed as OSGi sub deployments.
>>>
>>> It sounds like because we have removed the hack JDBC drivers now 
>>> will not work if they fail to resolve?
>>
>> If they fail to resolve it would be because a requirement specified 
>> by the JDBC driver cannot be satisfied (e.g. wrong execution 
>> environment, missing package wire). I'd say the deployment of that 
>> driver should fail at resolve time because it would not work anyway 
>> because of the missing wire to a valid capability. Please don't 
>> forget that the requirements given by author should be honoured and 
>> satisfied if you want the driver to work - they should not be ignored 
>> or replaced by some made up hard wires that happen to work. In this 
>> respect a JDBC driver is no different to any other OSGi bundle.
>>
>
> Yes, but in most cases the end user does not expect any JDBC/OSGI 
> interaction. As far as they are concerned they are just deploying a 
> database driver, it would not even occur to them that it has OSGI 
> implications.
Agreed, the user should not care - but the runtime should care about the 
requirements authored into the driver. It should process them 
accordingly and fail if they cannot be satisfied. Otherwise the driver 
may not work as intended by the author.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > we should not be allowing the presence of the OSGI subsystem to 
>>>> provide a different experience for users that are only after EE 
>>>> functionality
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, EE deployments should not be effected - and I don't think 
>>>> they are. The OSGi subsystem is not activated unless #1 you do so 
>>>> by management op #2 you deploy a bundle #3 some component is an 
>>>> injection target for the system BundleContext
>>>>
>>>> > We remove OSGI from the default profile, and provide a 
>>>> standalone-osgi.xml for users that wish to use OSGI
>>>>
>>>> AFAICS this would remove a few services that are already lazy and a 
>>>> few DUPs that deal with bundle deployments. We already have the 
>>>> configuration for a pure OSGi runtime as you suggest. Removing the 
>>>> OSGi subsystem from the default profile would not solve the need 
>>>> for DUP authors to be aware of OSGi deployments and code for the 
>>>> case of unresolved bundle deployments.
>>>
>>> Even if we resolve the module issue I still think that it would be 
>>> worth making this a separate profile. Like Jaikiran I really don't 
>>> like the idea of other subsystems having to code around OSGI. 
>>> Another possibility we could potentially explore is a separate 
>>> deployment chain for OSGI, so these DUP's do not even run if it is 
>>> an OSGI deployment.
>> The purpose of OSGi integration in AS7 is to make middleware services 
>> that come with AS7 available to modular applications that use the 
>> OSGi standard and vice versa (i.e. make OSGi services available to EE 
>> components). We are not trying to build a standalone OSGi runtime and 
>> compete with Virgo <http://www.eclipse.org/virgo/>, Karaf 
>> <http://karaf.apache.org/>, etc. Instead, we are competing against 
>> WebSphere, WebLogic, Glassfish - which AFAIK all use OSGi as their 
>> bottom most layer and increasingly so make this tech available to 
>> user deployments. From the business perspective the ability to 
>> architect non-trivial modular applications in a standard way is a 
>> requirement on the product sheet.
>
> If you are just worried about the product sheet then having this 
> available as a separate profile does not really make any difference. 
> It is still something that we are capable of, its just not in the 
> default profile (like JMS and CORBA for instance).
Yes, we could have the profile discussion. A possibility is an OSGi 
profile with all the subsystems that are supposed to be able to handle 
bundle deployments (i.e. web, ejb3, cdi, connector)
>
>>>
>>> Do we have any usage data on how many of our users actually use 
>>> OSGI? The more I think about it the more I think it makes sense to 
>>> leave it out of the default profile. Even though you say 'it is not 
>>> active unless you deploy a bundle', the thing is that many JDBC 
>>> driver have OSGI metadata, so users that simply want to setup a 
>>> datasource will still have OSGI activating, which is usually not 
>>> what they would want.
>> I have download stats on sourceforge for the jbosgi umbrella which 
>> are around 3000/month 
>> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/jboss/files/JBossOSGi/stats/timeline?dates=2012-01-01+to+2012-08-15>. 
>> I also know of a few large EAP accounts that are using this tech or 
>> have it as a decision maker for EAP yes/no. The reason that many JDBC 
>> drivers have OSGi metadata is because they *are* OSGi bundles and 
>> want their requirements to be honoured in a given runtime. OSGi 
>> subsystem startup should be quick and flawless and those driver 
>> bundles should work seamless in AS7. They currently do AFAIK - if not 
>> I'd be interested in the details.
>
> I just want to make sure that OSGI gives both deterministic behaviour 
> for OSGI deployments, and does not force other subsystems to have to 
> work around it with the if(module == null) hack.
I agree its a hack. It would go away if any deployment could have its 
RESOLVE state deferred. Out of this might also fall the ability to 
start/stop any deployment - whatever that may mean in the context of the 
deployment.
>
> I think that if there is never going to be a module then it needs to 
> go through its own deployment chain, as it is just going to cause 
> problems for every other processor in POST_MODULE onwards that expects 
> there will be one. If there is potentially going to be a module at 
> some point then the chain should wait for the module to be available, 
> because to do otherwise basically invites non-determistic behaviour 
> which is really not something we want.
Yes, the chain should wait for the module. The deploy management op 
should succeed with a descriptive status. The management API should 
support "just install", "install+activate", "activate/deactivate" - 
resolve can be implicit.
>
> Just to be clear, I have nothing against OSGI, but I really thing we 
> need to make sure it 'plays nice' with everything else.
Great ;-)
>
> Another thought, if we do implement passive deployments (i.e. 
> deployments that wait for a service to become available) this code is 
> also needed for HA singleton deployments, and any sort of 
> inter-deployment dependency mechanism above the class loading level 
> that we already have, so this solution potentially has other uses.
Yes, that would certainly narrow the gap between osgi and other type of 
deployments. I believe that any runtime that supports modular user 
deployments would naturally have similar requirements/functionality as 
an OSGi runtime.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > OSGI deployment that cannot be resolved pause the deployment 
>>>> process until such time as they can be
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is very much in line with what I think how it should 
>>>> work. The management API should allow the user to specify whether a 
>>>> deployment should get resolved/activated too. As a desired side 
>>>> effect this could introduce life cycle for any AS7 deployment (i.e. 
>>>> start/stop decoupled from deploy/undeploy). I already did some work 
>>>> in this direction related to in "Add notion of start/stop for 
>>>> deployments <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-2777>". It builds 
>>>> on top of "Allow management client to associate metadata with 
>>>> DeploymentUnit <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-3694>", which 
>>>> is waiting to get pulled 
>>>> <https://github.com/jbossas/jboss-as/pull/2790>.
>>>>
>>>> > which means that there will always be a Module available
>>>>
>>>> YES ;-)
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> --thomas
>>>>
>>>> On 08/15/2012 07:26 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>>> Why would the OSGI bundle not be able to resolve, is it because is waiting for another OSGI bundle to be installed? And if so, wouldn't it make more sense to pause the deployment process until the bundle can be resolved? Otherwise the behaviour will be different depending on when the bundle is resolved (e.g. if a bundle is resolved late it will not have EJB's deployed, if it is resolved early it will).
>>>>>
>>>>> I really hate the way that OSGI takes over and prevents the module being created, I am pretty sure that the number of users that this has caused problems for is larger than the number of users that actually use OSGI (the classic one is deployment of JDBC drivers that have an OSGI manifest).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we really need a solution for this for AS 7.2, because as it currently stands we are primarily an EE app server, and we should not be allowing the presence of the OSGI subsystem to provide a different experience for users that are only after EE functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> To this end, I propose the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> - We remove OSGI from the default profile, and provide a standalone-osgi.xml for users that wish to use OSGI, this way OSGI cannot affect users that simply want EE functionality
>>>>> - OSGI deployment that cannot be resolved pause the deployment process until such time as they can be, by making the POST_MODULE DeploymentUnitPhaseService passive, which means that there will always be a Module available.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15/08/2012, at 3:05 PM, Thomas Diesler<thomas.diesler at jboss.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a quick reminder that you cannot assume a valid Module attachment in
>>>>>> Phase.POST_MODULE or after.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An OSGi deployment that cannot resolve won't have a Module attached to
>>>>>> the DU. There is talk about aligning the deployment phase names with
>>>>>> Bundle life cycle terminology. IMHO Phase.POST_MODULE and Phase.INSTALL
>>>>>> are not so lucky names because they imply meaning that may not be true.
>>>>>> For suggested improvement seehttps://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-3585
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is related to:https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-5376
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> --thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Thomas Diesler
>>>>>> JBoss OSGi Lead
>>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Thomas Diesler
>>>> JBoss OSGi Lead
>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Thomas Diesler
>> JBoss OSGi Lead
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>

-- 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Diesler
JBoss OSGi Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-as7-dev/attachments/20120815/8d71fe39/attachment-0001.html