[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: R3 transports to implement

david.lloyd@jboss.com do-not-reply at jboss.com
Mon Jul 28 08:01:38 EDT 2008


I'll start replying from the first post.

"trustin" wrote : If I remember the latest conversation with David in our IRC channel, our current timeline-less road map looks like the following overally:
  | 
  |  * 3.0 - Stable API and its R2 compatible transports (socket, RMI, servlet, bisocket)
  |  * 3.1 - SSH and other bells and whistles (maybe HTTP or it should go to 3.2)
  | 
  | Are we all agreed on this overall road map?  If so, we could step into more detailed tasks for each milestone.

I do agree on this; however it must be said at this point that the R2 compatibility is really not as simple as it might seem, and it might be that we end up doing a 3.0 that simply has the basic transport, 3.1 which adds some R2 types, 3.2 which adds SSH and perhaps more R2 types, etc.  I think that it's most important to get a release out this September, and start time-boxing releases, even if it's not immediately usable as a complete Remoting 2 replacement.

"trustin" wrote : And... According to the recent discussion ('Hints Welcome'), David also mentioned a simple new R3 implementation for LAN use.  I thought we could focus on SSH and use NUL crypto algorythm and no compression.  We could also configure each request listener to require different cryptographic strength (perhaps using annotation?).  WDYT?

A basic protocol implementation is necessary in order to support any SSH-based transport.  Since SSH is implemented using multiplexed message-based channels, a protocol implementation is needed which can run over a message-based channel.  That's what the basic protocol support is.  It is not intended to be directly used in user code due to the lack of authentication, encryption, etc.  But it will form the basis for the SSH transport when it is ready.

The implementation is a necessary prerequisite to 3.0 - without it, we can't know if the design is even valid.

Bear with me for a bit and I'll type up responses to the other posts as well...

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166974#4166974

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166974



More information about the jboss-dev-forums mailing list