[jboss-as7-dev] HTTP Upgrade for AS8 Management

[Kabir Khan]

On 28 Mar 2013, at 11:27, Stuart Douglas wrote:

> 
> 
> Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>> On 28/03/13 11:04, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>> This is what we have been using to represent JBoss remoting URI's so
>>> far. I do agree that is is a bit ambiguous.
>> 
>> I am not sure if that has been a deliberate decision but apart from
>> naming it has not really been that visible so far.
>> 
>> I think what happened was the Remoting test suite had tests that had
>> local and remote connection providers registered and then these names
>> have stuck as new communication libraries have followed the test suite.
>> 
>> So those names work when using the remoting APIs directly but are not so
>> good once you are using an alternative API that is wrapping Remoting.
>> 
>> I think whatever set of protocol names we choose they are going to need
>> to be ones we can live with long term. The suggestions for Remoting JMX
>> I think are fine, if we ever wanted pure http for JMX that could be a
>> new library with a completely different protocol in the Service URL.
>> 
>> However another question for 'ModelControllerClient' are we also sure we
>> will never want to add support for pure HTTP invocations?
> 
> That is also a question that will need to be answered for EJB. I know 
> work is being done on a pure HTTP client, so we need to make sure that 
> there is no ambiguity there.
> 
> Also if we have HTTP upgrade, why would we need a pure HTTP client 
> library? The only reason that I can think of is that if there are some 
> firewalls that block HTTP upgrade, but I am not really sure if that is 
> really a thing.

I think a pure http client library would open up nice possibilities for porting the cli to android, afaik remoting/xnio will not work there (although my impression there is based on rumours). Perhaps that isn't so important, but it sounds like fun to me :-)
> 
> Stuart
> 
>> 
>>> Stuart
>>> 
>>> Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>>> Sounds good, just one point before it reaches a point people are using
>>>> it - Is 'remote' really a suitable protocol name?
>>>> 
>>>> Within Remoting JMX the reason I went for 'remoting-jmx' was to indicate
>>>> that it was JMX over Remoting.
>>>> 
>>>> RMI is also considered remote so I think having a protocol of 'remote'
>>>> is ambiguous.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 28/03/13 10:15, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now that we are using Undertow as the domain management HTTP server it
>>>>> is now possible to use a HTTP upgrade for the native management and
>>>>> remote-jmx protocols. This will allow us to run all management
>>>>> protocols
>>>>> over port 9990, and allow us to remove 9999 from our default config.
>>>>> The
>>>>> idea is significantly reduce the ports that are open in our default
>>>>> config, ideally eventually we will just have a management and
>>>>> application HTTP ports and that will be it (although some technologies
>>>>> such as CORBA are not compatible with HTTP Upgrade).
>>>>> 
>>>>> With this in mind I have started working on a series of patches[1] to
>>>>> implement this, that I am hoping will be ready to merge early next
>>>>> week.
>>>>> (These patches are still a work in progress, but the core functionality
>>>>> works).
>>>>> 
>>>>> For those of you who are not familiar with HTTP upgrade it is a
>>>>> mechanism where a client makes a HTTP request to the client with the
>>>>> Upgrade: header set, the server will then respond with a HTTP 101
>>>>> response. In our implementation the server then hands the channel over
>>>>> to JBoss Remoting which then performs its normal handshake, including
>>>>> authentication.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The upshot of all this will be:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - We no longer have port 9999 open by default, which will break older
>>>>> clients that attempt to talk to a default AS8 instance (it will
>>>>> still be
>>>>> possible to add a native interface to allow it to work with older
>>>>> clients).
>>>>> 
>>>>> - ModelControllerClient.Factory.create() now allows you to specify a
>>>>> protocol, which can be either remote, http or https.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Remote JMX will now require a service:jmx:http(s)-remoting-jmx:// URL
>>>>> rather than the current service:jmx:remoting-jmx://
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have not touched domain management yet, and these patches are not yet
>>>>> ready for merging, but because this is a fairly big change I thought I
>>>>> would get peoples thoughts before I finish it off and submit a PR.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Stuart
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://github.com/stuartwdouglas/xnio/compare/http-upgrade
>>>>> https://github.com/stuartwdouglas/jboss-remoting/compare/http-upgrade
>>>>> https://github.com/stuartwdouglas/remoting-jmx/compare/http-upgrade
>>>>> https://github.com/stuartwdouglas/jboss-as/compare/http-upgrade
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

---------------------------------------
Kabir Khan
Prinicipal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat