> > >> Clarification: Separate the location and identity of a jar file or > archive containing class files: > > We have integrity constraints, which rely on message digests to confirm > files have not been tampered with. > > The message digest (although now considered a weak form of encryption), is > the identity of a jar file, well we use this type of information to identify > it's the jar we expect. > > For httpmd, we use a URL string annotation (which could be an IP address > and port, or a DNS hostname and port), a path and file name, followed by the > message digest. > > The IP address or dns hostname , port and path represent the location of > the jar file, while the file name and message digest represent it's > identity. > > If we separate the location + port, it can be discovered using DNS-SRV > records, allowing redundant codebase servers, while the identity is limited > to the file name and message digest. > > Then the RMI codebase property only needs to be a domain in which a > suitable codebase can be discovered and queried. > > Mmm, but the process of resolution on codebases slows things down for Gregg. I think we're gonna have to decide which profiles of machines we're going to target with what solutions. I'm not suggesting we try and build for all the different profiles more that we'll have to choose what we do and do not support.
But, if service proxy's are sharing jar files, what does that mean? Someone >> somewhere chose to package them all together like that for some reason. >> What >> reason, what problem are they solving? >> >> > Deployment reasons. > > :) Yes, deployment but why are we choosing to deploy with this setup. What does it imply about services when they share .jar files? > > Again, I'm sitting here thinking as a deployer of services, if I want to >> widget around and consolidate .jars I can do that ahead of time and then >> tweak service codebases via config just prior to deploy. >> >> > > But it would be faster for the client to receive unconsolidated jar's, > since other services might use some of these jars also. > > Not for Gregg who hates roundtrips and multiple discoveries of codebases and such. > What matters is the proxy gets the correct class files, in its own private > namespace that are not shared with other proxy's (except for service api, > which may include Entry's), but we can save duplicate downloads. > > Can you explain your reasoning for saving duplicate downloads? I think you mean because in some cases service's could share a codebase which they can do under the current scheme of course. Note that having "correct class files" isn't IMHO a sufficient constraint, it has to be a "particular collection of specific implementations of classes and versions". > Maven provisioning is interesting. > > This is why I'm interested to investigate separating jar file identity from > location, to simplify deployment and redundancy. I'm putting my thoughts > out on the list, to gather responses, to see if there's a better way. Okay, so I think this also impacts on the stuff being discussed with Gregg. Whilst there are some complimentary aspects there are some costly steps in there as well. > > > >> >> >> >>> Jini's lookup service lack of AND / OR querying capability is due to >>> security, the avoidance of instantiating foreign objects. >>> >>> Delayed unmarshalling of the service proxy allows service entry's to be >>> compared as objects, without requiring a codebase download for the proxy >>> if >>> it's not the service we want, so it's not quite just returning a >>> MarshalledInstance. This should be done without compromising the good >>> security features of the existing lookup service. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I don't follow - I could tweak ServiceItem to hold the proxy as a >> MarshalledInstance and still expose all other "service identifying >> information". That MarshalledInstance mightn't even immediately carry the >> proxy code, could still be on the server and pulled down at point the >> consumer actually wants the proxy. Feels like some simple >> interface/sub-classing. >> >> > > This is true for cases where the service types don't matter to the client, > I think Gregg wanted to elimate all codebase downloads until he was sure he > had the correct service. Use of a MarshalledInstance could be an acceptable > compromise, if Entry's have their own codebase annotations. How would this > affect the lookup semantics if we're looking for particular service types > though? Entry's have to have their own codebase for all cases of clients that don't know about those Entry's. Any client that has built-in knowledge of those Entry's will have them available on the classpath by virtue of it's need to specify them in it's lookup search. Can you explain more about the service types question? If I'm looking for a particular type, I specify a particular interface. I'm guessing you mean a service with specific Entry's? A client after some specific set of Entry's will already know those via classpath. We could simply allow a client to say "I'm only interested in Services with these Entry's, return me all matches but only give me the following Entry types as part of the ServiceItem". This feels much closer to the original intent "stop stuff getting to a client that it's not interested in" than trying to "control in detail all aspects of download and intimately dig around in service implementations, including .jars, to do it". > > >> >> >> >>> Over the internet, we could potentially have very large lookup services, >>> by >>> allowing clients to remove unwanted services from their results before >>> unmarshalling, we can reduce the resources required of the client: >>> >>> * Network Bandwidth, clients don't need to download unwanted codebases. >>> * Memory (ClassLoader and unwanted classes are not loaded into memory). >>> >>> >>> >>> >> If we were to go across internet have we squared away use of e.g. DNS-SD? >> i.e. Is it a given we'll expose a classic JINI LUS? >> >> > > The semantics of DNS-SD make it well suited to discovery of a lookup > service. I think Sim highlighted earlier that its difficult to get domain > administrators to do Dynamic Updated DNS-SD, they're comfortable with > DNS-SRV records, so it would appear easier to rely on DNS-SD as a lookup > locator / domain browser, not as a lookup service replacement. > Agreed. Solves my concerns of exposing unicast locators of the traditional type and multicast across the net. > > Cheers, > > Peter. >
