+1 on making it easy. Spark has their "here's how you can use Spark to stream a word count program" example, as far as I'm aware River doesn't have anything similar.
+1 on the Docker mention, I've been doing lots of Docker recently with Consul as a service discovery mechanism, I think River would really benefit from Docker-isation. Both in terms of running Reggie, Outrigger etc inside containers, and also using Reggie et al to orchestrate containers. In fact, that's on my list of things to do. Like Greg, I see River being used behind the firewall. I'm intending on using it for a prototype something new I'm cooking up right now. I get your point about the network security never being guaranteed, either through malice or poor code, but for my own use cases, if someone is introducing deliberate RMI based security problems on my network then I have far bigger issues than my River services. I personally have no appetite for River-on-the-web, but good luck to anyone who wants to go for it. On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > Good, we can focus on making development easier. > > What tool do you need to make development easier? > > Don't forget the 4th fallacy of distributed computing, the network is > secure. Many recent security breaches have been via inadequate security > behind the firewall. I don't know your situation but not everyones will be > the same. With all the recent serialization rmi security scares, we could > pick up some market share instead of other more in vogue rpc frameworks > capturing it all. > > I did some work on a security manager for generating policy files, but it > was deleted at some point, before I got back to it, I made > CombinerSecurityManager extensible so it can be made to do the same. > Another tool that would be useful is one to generate preferred class lists. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > Sent from my Samsung device. > > Include original message > ---- Original message ---- > From: Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> > Sent: 27/02/2016 01:54:15 pm > To: dev@river.apache.org > Subject: Re: The future thing > > > > My vote - service integration in the cloud/data centre. I look at the > convolutions that people are going through to get service discovery working > in a Docker environment (e.g > https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/the-docker-ecosystem-service-discovery-and-distributed-configuration-stores > ), and I think that Jini has solved this problem already. The dynamic > discovery and zero-configuration nature of Jini, not to mention the inherent > fault-tolerance that goes along with leasing, etc, makes Jini perfectly > suited to a dynamically-scalable environment. We just haven’t made it easy > to get started. Also, in the past, people were often left with the > impression that Jini was too complex. I think that people have come around > to the idea that the problem-space for distributed computing is complex, so > the solution-space is necessarily complex as well. > > > So, what I’d like to see is a solid focus on making it easy to write > micro-services and clients to micro-services using Jini. I’ll be clear here > and say I’m not talking about user-facing client-side integration. I’m > talking about integrating micro-services behind the firewall, where the > ‘clients’ are either other services behind the firewall or web applications > that provide the internet-facing service as http-based RESTful services. > > > We should work on tools, examples, and frameworks that make it demonstrably > easier to write applications using River. > > There’s my $0.02 > > Cheers, > > Greg Trasuk > > > On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > > > > I'll reply to these later, I'm on the road atm. > > > > > In the mean time, what do you, our community of developers envision for > > River's future? > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter. > > > > Sent from my Samsung device. > > > > Include original message > > ---- Original message ---- > > From: Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> > > Sent: 26/02/2016 01:01:14 am > > To: dev@river.apacheorg > > Subject: Re: The future thing > > > > > > > I think it’s difficult to talk about future features without context. So > > it would be helpful if we could express in a great level of detail what > > exactly we see people doing with River. Perhaps even build a > > proof-of-concept demonstration and use that to drive any changes to River. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Greg Trasuk > > > >> On Feb 25, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks for getting this started > >> > > >> I think you have a high level vision of where you see River going in the > >> future. It might be useful to state it here. The costs and benefits of > >> changes are best evaluated in that sort of context. > >> > >> On 2/25/2016 3:52 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote: > >>> While we're waiting for people to review River 3.0's Release > >>> artifacts... > >>> > >>> I've posted some of my more contraversial work on River security and > >>> ipv6 global discovery (internet announcement protocol) on github. > >>> The river community is free to cherry pick the code if it wants. I > >>> would have much preferred to have developed it collaboratively, > >>> there's room for improvement. > >>> > >>> Features: > >> ... > > > > > > >
