(cc’d to user@ for discussion)

Not sure about a research branch - I’d like to focus on making it easier for 
developers to use River in real applications, so I’m hesitant to do anything 
that diverts attention from that.  On the other hand, we should perhaps try out 
some things.  On yet another hand, I’m not sure if easier deployment is 
necessarily backwards-incompatible.  I’d love to hear more opinions.

I wonder if we can just discuss the idea of removing activation and JRMP 
support from trunk?  

For me, JRMP is a no-brainer - the functionality is much better covered by 
JERI.  I think JRMP was only there for backwards compatibility to Jini 1.2 
services.

Activation is a little more difficult question.  Personally I’ve never used it, 
and I suspect the rationale for it (maintaining service availability in 
restricted environments) is not so strong these days.  We generally seem to be 
OK with leaving services running all the time - that’s the deployment model for 
XML- and REST-based SOA.

So I’d be fine with just dropping support for JRMP and activation, but we 
should hear more opinions.

Something I would like to see is a messaging-based channel for JERI.  Something 
like JERI-over AMQP (i.e. using a QPID server).  AMQP is gaining traction in 
the financial industry (it originally started out at JP Morgan Chase), but the 
challenge as with any messaging protocol is how to structure the messages.  
I’ve seen Google Protocol Buffers used, but that seems over-architected to me 
(and much like XML/SOAP, incurs a large development overhead to get platform 
neutrality that is seldom actually used).  I think allowing for Jini would give 
the advantages of low configuration overhead, but still give the low latency 
that AMQP promises.  That also seems to fit in well with a space-based 
architecture for load-balancing.

Anyone else have thoughts on dropping JRMP and Activation, or on adding AMQP 
endpoints?

Cheers,

Greg Trasuk.

On Feb 14, 2014, at 10:52 PM, Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote:

> Any takers for a research branch to exlpore recent ideas?
> 
> Was thinking about a subset of Jini, just the essentials, no activation, no 
> JRMP support, forgetting backward compatibility to allow experimentation with 
> new ideas and considering all possibilities.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter.

Reply via email to