Hi, We have made some progress. See the details in the wiki page http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+Geronimo+Integrationunder Current status. Code is in Geronimo Sandbox.
Thanks and regards, Vamsi On 7/7/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I created an empty WIKI page @ > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+Geronimo+Integration > . > We should try to capture the key points for the discussions. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manu George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:42 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Geronimo-Tuscany integration(Sending to both lists) > > > > Hi Simon, > > Comments inline. > > > > On 7/5/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Manu > >> > >> more comments in line.... > >> > >> On 7/4/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi Simon, > >> > In one of the previous mails Sebastien proposed two > >> > ways of how the SCADomain should exist in geronimo > >> > > >> > >(a) one instance of SCADomain per component running on the server, > >> > >loaded with a subset of the distributed SCA domain composite > >> > >representing that component and enough information about its peer > >> > >components for it to locate and wire to them. > >> > > >> > >(b) a single SCADomain object per Geronimo server, loaded with all > the > >> > >components running on the server. This will save a little bit of > >> > >memory, > >> > >at the expense of more synchronization work. > >> > > >> > >I'd suggest to start with option (a) as it's the model that needs to > >> > >be > >> > >supported when SCA components run on different physical machines as > >> > >well, and I'm actually not sure that we'll get any real performance > >> > >gain > >> > >with (b) over (a) if we do (a) right. > >> > > >> > Point (a) looks very similar to the distributed domain concept you > >> > explained. First it should be distributed across different > >> > apps/classloaders. There will be different instances of SCADomain > >> > containing parts of the whole and the different domain instances > >> > should constitute a single domain, which is capable of wiring > together > >> > the components in the different instances they should be able to > wire. > >> > >> > >> Yes , that's the intent . It's not clear to me exactly what Sebastien > >> meant > >> when he said "one instance of SCADomain per component running on the > >> server", i.e. did he mean SCA component here or is component a Geronimo > >> term > >> in this case. The distributed domain implementation to date allows each > >> part > >> of the distributed domain (node) to run one or more components but it > >> doesn't limit you to just one. > >> > > What I initially thought was that the same distributed domain analogy > > can be applied to applications exposed as SCA components. i.e. Each > > application will be a composite and since they run in different > > classloaders and are isolated, there will be a part of the SCADomain > > running in each classloader.in the same JVM > > > >> This looks exactly like the scenario u mentioned but only locally. Is > >> > this supported as of now. > >> > >> > >> It's supported now in the svn truck but the transport protocol used > >> across > >> remote parts of the domain is JMS. I'm looking now to add web services > in > >> also. What do you mean by locally? Is this about multiple jvms running > >> within Geronimo? > >> > > Geronimo runs on a single JVM. I meant the scenario i mentioned above. > > Thats what i thought Sebastien mentioned. Now I think my > > understanding maybe wrong. Seeing your mail my understanding has > > changed to there being a server wide runtime and there can be multiple > > domains in it. Also in case of disrtibuted runtime it can span server > > instances. > > > >> > > As Raymond says, we do have limited support for the distributed > >> > SCADomain > >> > > now. The APIs for driving it are not sorted out yet though. What > >> > > happens > >> > now > >> > > is that you provide all contributed resources to each node in the > >> > > domain > >> > and > >> > > then tell each node which component from a contribution it is > >> > responsible > >> > > and it does the rest creating remote connections where appropriate. > >> > > >> > > I am > >> > > interested to understand how you might use a distributed domain in > >> > > the > >> > > Geronimo integration exercise, even if you use the single > >> > EmbeddedSCADomain > >> > > in the first instance, as it could inform the design of the API. > >> > > > >> > I didn't give much thought to this but at the high level two > >> > possibilities. > >> > > >> > a) If we have a single domain per server. Then that domain can span > >> > over multiple Geronimo instances and do wiring between JEE apps > >> > exposed as SCA services on both the server instances. > >> > >> > >> Sounds like the right sort of scenario. Certainly the sort that I had > >> envisaged. > >> > >> b) If we have multiple domains in each server, then each of them can > >> > span over multiple instances. > >> > >> > >> Yes. The tuscany code in distributed domain guise should be able to > >> handle > >> more than one distributed domain. > >> > >> c) If in one server itself there are many instances constituting one > >> > domain, then there is a possibility that there are multiple instances > >> > in another server as well which also will be part of the same domain. > >> > >> > >> Do you mean component instances or geronimo instances here? Assuming > >> you > >> mean Geronimo instances then yes regardless of how Geronino is started, > >> i.e. > >> many instances on one box or main instances across boxes we would > expect > >> a > >> domain to be able to span these instances. > >> > >> d) What to do when we cluster geronimo instances? Will SCADomains be > >> > clustered too? > >> > >> > >> Interesting question. To date I have modelled the distributed domain as > a > >> set of distributed nodes where each node provides service endpoints for > >> the > >> services it contains. This does not explain how a node is implemented. > It > >> could be a JVM running tuscany or it could be a cluster spreading the > >> load > >> out across many JVMs. The thing is that there is the notion of a node > >> exposing the endpoints for the part of the distributed domain it runs. > >> I.e. > >> my emphasis has been on how to represent a widely distributed set of > >> services in a distributed domain rather than how to represent a > >> performance > >> or HA solution, such as a cluster. Having said this it would be good to > >> understand how you would implement a node in a distributed domain as a > >> cluster of Geronimo servers so I'm keen to help out on that if I can. > >> > > > > I guess we can think of it at a later stage. If the domain is > > distributed, it is like a cluster I guess. But my concern was that > > when we clone server nodes the SCADomains will also get cloned for > > both local and distributed domains and we need to handle that > > scenario.. > > > >> I am not sure how much sense i am making and whatever I am saying is > >> > very general. This is all i can think off now. If there is anything > >> > else someone can think off pls jump in. > >> > >> > >> As you can tell I'm not a Geronimo expert and It's easy to get lost > when > >> we > >> all start talking about servers, instances, nodes, components etc. > What > >> we > >> could do with is a set of terms that we agree the meaning of to help > our > >> conversation along. To date I have been thinking of the distributed > >> domain > >> in this way.... > >> > >> SCADomain n ---- 1 Runtime 1 ----- n Node n ---- n SCA Component 1 ---- > n > >> SCA Component Instance > >> > > Ok here I am not getting why there are n instances of the SCA > > Component? I understand from your previous mails that for the > > distributed runtime each node needs all contributed resources to be > > provided. So that results in 1 instance of the SCA Component per node. > > Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the distributed runtime? Or is it > > the initial step, or am i missing something (most likely :)). > > > > In the application scenario where each app is a composite I was > > envisaging only a single component instance or more accurate 1 SCA > > composite instance per application. > > > >> So a (distributed)SCA domain runs on logical runtime. This runtime > >> doesn't > >> really exist in any physical sense and is just the collection of nodes > >> that > >> runt artefacts belonging to the domain. Now where does Geronimo come > in? > >> > >> Server 1 ----- n Jvm 1 ---- 1 Geronimo Instance > > > >> > >> Where server is some physical computer/processor and the Geronimo > >> instance > >> is a JVM containing a running instance of Geronimo. Can you say > something > >> about how Geronimo instances would be related to one another? > >> > >> Would it be the case that there is a one to one relationship between > >> Geronimo instance and Node? > >> > > As per my understanding yes that makes the most sense. I am assuming > > that there can be multiple nodes per server/machine just like there > > can be multiple geronimo instances in the same machine. > > > >> > >> Regards > >> > Manu > >> > > >> > > >> > > Regards > >> > > > >> > > Simon > >> > > > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Regards > > Manu > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
