I also am not so sure that this magnitude of change needs prior discussion on the list. I've frequently made larger changes without discussion of my specific code. I've also broken lots of stuff at various times.
One thing I insist on is that it be possible to run geronimo with no clustering support whatsoever, including no clustering classes anywhere in the geronimo system. I believe this means that each clustering system has to be installed as a configuration. Doing this right now as the first step will I think help focus the rest of the componentization.
I don't understand the requirements very well, I hope for some answers:- do we need to support running more than one clustering system with a particular web container instance (e.g. JettyContainerImpl gbean instance)? I'm hoping "no"
IIUC we are installing clustering as a session manager. Perhaps I don't understand the code but it looks to me as if the jetty code at least is creating a new instance for each web app. I can't believe this is an acceptable strategy for all clustering implementations. For instance, I would think if you have a bunch of web apps doing cross-context dispatch you would want them all to share a session manager. I think we want the possibility of installing a single container wide session manager or per-app session managers.
Is it really plausible to rely on the distributable tag in the spec dd to turn on clustering? I would think a further tag in our plan should be needed.
Here's what I propose:We define a SessionManagerFactory interface, and for each clustering technology provide an implementation as a gbean. You can get a local and a distributed session manager from this interface. The runtime configuration for the clustering includes this gbean. Each web app context gets a reference to this gbean and gets the appropriate session manager when it starts. The web app context knows if it is supposed to be local or distributed so it can ask for the right session manager.
We have a deploy time configuration for each clustering technology also. This at least supplies the gbean reference to the runtime gbean, and can also install a runtime gbean in the configuration under construction. In this way the clustering technology can decide on whether one session manager is shared, a factory that always returns unconfigured new instances is needed, or if each web app needs a specially configured session manager.
If this isn't clear, I'll be happy to try to clarify. thanks david jencks On Jan 12, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I didn't finish #4..sorry...4) Your integration of setting the manager (no matter what) is a directclash with the Tomcat clustering components (GBeans). We need a more unified approach to selecting a clustering component. Jeff Genender wrote:Hi Jules.A few comments. First, you made changes without discussing them on thedev lists.As per the discussions in the past, both Aaron and David Jencks, as wellas I threw in our .02 on how to integrate the clustering. I wouldappreciate you discuss code ideas and changes that have such a drastic impact on the Geronimo code base. Here are the issues with your check in:1) I explained before for Jetty, and obviously now I need to do it forTomcat, a -1 on Axion as a dependency. There should not be any web application dependencies injected at the container level. This means there is a severe architectural issue with WADI when we are injecting these dependencies into the container. 2) You hard coded in org.codehaus.wadi.tomcat55.TomcatManager as the distributablesession manager in the TomcatContainer. Hardcoding apluggable session engine is very bad, and defeats the pluggability of aconfiguration that we requested. 3) You placed log.info() in the code, and Aaron worked pretty hard to clean those up.4) Your integration of setting the manager (no matter what) is a directclash with the Jules, I am giving a complete -1 of checkin of 368344. These are all for technical reasons. Please back out these changes, and bring this discussion to the Geronimo lists as this needs some significant discussion for implementation. I would appreciate that you please involve the Apache way and open discussions on the lists before doing this sort of thing in the future.Again, I will CC the G lists to make this clear, that I would like thischange backed out. Jeff Jules Gosnell wrote:Here is a list of outstanding issues associated with this work:- ActiveMQ's shutdown hook seems to trigger when Geronimo is shutdown,removing AMQ before WADI - WADI doesn't like this. I have added aproperty to the node.sh script which suppresses this behaviour. I willdocument it in the Getting Started doc.- There 'may' be issues with nodes finding each other, when a Geronimonode is introduced into a WADI cluster - investigating.- Jeff - you should look over the changes and make sure that they do notimpact on any other TC fn-ality. They were done with Emacs, so theformatting may be offensive. Please feel free to make them your own and bring any issues back to the list. The WADIGBean, is no longer used, soyou may want to remove this from the repo.- Jan and Jeff - since this config is now done on the container bean and not in the geronimo-web.xml, you may no longer need to implement your own geronimo-web.xml schemas (I haven't looked very closely at TC). Youmay want to consider this and perhaps lose them. - In order to get the same webapp to work in all containers(tomcat5[05], jetty[56], geronimo-[tomcat/jetty], jboss-tomcat), I hadto move deps back to Geronimo container-level. These include Axion,which I know will upset Jeff. As I have stated before, WADI's dependence on Axion is easily removed. If Jeff or anyone wants to look at replacing it with Derby, it is fine with me, as long as they do some testing and confirm that having created a session on a single node and restarted it,the session survives (if the DB is still running). This needs to be tested on all supported containers. Axion was used because it is anin-VM DB (so imposes no further integration dependencies on the Getting Started stuff and is useful for unit-testing) and was in use by Geronimo at the time. So I suggest that any replacement needs to also be able to run in-vm aswell. As we go further and move WADI's actual configurationfrom the app to the container-level, these issues will disappear and WADI will be able to be hooked to whatever persistance mechanism is shipped in Geronimo by default. - Jan & Jeff , you may want to consider pushing some of this sessionmanager selection code up into a shared GeronimoWebContainer abstraction so that you don't both end up maintaining similar but diverging code...- I may have overlooked a couple of issues. If I come across them, I shall post them. Further work on Geronimo integration : - more testing - make a new WADI release and update geronimo-trunk to use it- look at applying diffs to a G1.0 tree and producing a binary patch for1.0 distros. - update website and release it Jules Jules Gosnell wrote:Guys, Jan and I have just refactored the Geronimo Jetty and Tomcat integrations to take the same approach to the installation of a 3rd party session manager, to ease the integration of WADI. This is now checked in on Geronimo's trunk.Each top level web container GBean now supports a pair of attributes - LocalSessionManager and DistributableSessionManager. These may be used to override the container's choice of SessionManager for webapps with and without the <distributable/> tag present in the WEB-INF/ web.xml,respectively.The attributes expect to be given a classname, if required, this class will be loaded and instantiated. The resulting instance will be usedas the session manager. If not provided, the container will use asensible default. Currently Jetty and TC are set up to use their owndefault session managers in the local case and the correct WADI session manager in the distributable case. This means that the same WADI-enabled webapp, with its plan held internally (WEB-INF/geronimo-web.xml) may now be hot-deployed on either a Jetty or a Tomcat based Geronimo, without changes :-) I will post specific WADI issues to the WADI dev lists ([email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]).This shouldn't be seen as a final position on the subject - there is still much to talk about, but is a useful interim step, that allows usto have something working whilst we figure out how to go forward. Enjoy, Jules
