Remember we are an open source organization. Getting source releases out
is the main thing. Binary artifacts are an optional extra.
Can you state your concerns with making the Trunk River 3.0? Do you feel
it is a regression relative to our current release? My impression is
that it is better, and should be the field release.
As always, I welcome input to the board report. I do feel it should
either report we have released River 3.0, or discuss the barriers to
getting it released.
On 4/6/2016 3:24 PM, Peter wrote:
We should perhaps raise some of the development problems we're having with the
board.
I can create another release artifact in the near future, I need to look into
how to create binary artifacts and stage the maven artifacts.
Regards,
Peter.
Sent from my Samsung device.
Include original message
---- Original message ----
From: Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Sent: 06/04/2016 11:15:06 pm
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: The future thing
The ability to spin releases is a key aspect of being a viable project.
If we can't do that, I need to raise it as an issue in my next board
report. The problem of divergence between the last release and the trunk
is only going to get worse with time.
On 4/6/2016 3:54 AM, Peter wrote:
Thanks Tom,
I don't think the River community is ready to abandon the 2.2 branch
just yet.
It doesn't look like anyone's about to volunteer to spin another 3.0.0
release just yet either. Concerns remain about River 3.0 being ready
for prime time, in any case we're only set up for source releases at
present, so it would seem best to leave trunk as it is for people to
check out, build and test until confidence improves. In any case
there's a 2.2 series release to tide people over.
Can others on the list tell us more about where they think River's
future development path should be?
What other repetitive tasks do people do now that we could develop tools
for?
Regards,
Peter.
On 2/03/2016 7:05 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
Can you tell us more about the tools River requires for deployment
inside
docker containers?
The answer could be "nothing to do", but anyway it is a job for Future
Tom. I'm sure he'll be happy to share when he figures it out. :-) In
fact was intending to commit the Dockerfiles when I get them sorted out.
+1 on setting goals. Clear goals and direction are a must. Last time I
looked (ages ago!) there is /nothing/ on our backlog that looked fun (to
me). A roadmap and unscoped (?) backlog items might help to change that
Good luck on securing services over the net - and I mean that seriously.
Since my previous email, I've got half a use case bubbling away in the
back
my mind which might just find it useful.
Talking about Git. What do people thing about deploying 3.0 as the fresh
new source in (Apache's) Git and just locking/deprecating/abandoning
whatever is in SVN?
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Peter<j...@zeus.net.au> wrote:
Can you tell us more about the tools River requires for deployment
inside
docker containers?
River needs to establish goals and it needs committers willing to work
towards those goals, at the moment we don't have little of either, so
establishing some may help the project survive.
I'm working on a secure version of River, forked from River trunk,
for use
on either side of the firewall, I'm tempted to consider removal of all
dependencies on rmi code, but presently it is backward compatible with
River. I think most people misunderstand the concept of River on the
web,
or the internet, it's not something that would run from within a web
browser like a plugin, it's just a way for programs to send messages to
each other, peer to peer, globally, without requiring setting up web
servers and clients, it's not the sever -> client / content provider&
consumer model. It has a lot more in common with the IoT model.
In any case, securing river isn't that big a deal, it's somewhat
easier to
understand as ProxyTrust has been deprecated and there are performance
improvements, but don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.
https://github.com/pfirmstone/river-internet
Regards,
Peter
On 28/02/2016 12:10 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
+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:
...
