Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Krishnakumar B]

Hi David,

Few days back i had attached a implementation to JIRA-2153. Would be
glad if u can provide ur review comments for the same.

Regards
Krishnakumar

On 7/18/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi David,

I have updated the JIRA-2153 with Context implementation and GBean
that binds to JNDI.

Kindly provide ur comments.

Regards
Krish


On 7/6/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See my comment in the jira about this, I don't think you need to use
> any naming References at all, nor do you need anything but a GBean
> reference to the appropriate GBean.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jul 6, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Krishnakumar B wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I tried this and it works for Custom Resource Adapters. There is still
> > a problem for Registering GBeans in Global JNDI through the builder (
> > ServiceConfigBuilder ). The Builder is a part of
> > geronimo-gbean-deployer plan which is parent of j2ee-deployer.  The
> > geronimo-naming jars are loaded in j2ee-deployer. Hence we dont get
> > access in ServiceConfigBuilder to GBeanReference thats part of naming.
> >
> > Currently all the binding GBeans are in naming package. So it works
> > for all j2ee deployments.
> >
> > Is there a way to work around this ClassLoading problem heirarchy for
> > binding GBeans through builder?
> >
> > Regards
> > Krishnakumar
> >
> >
> > On 6/28/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think there is a simpler solution, or perhaps I don't understand
> >> all the
> >> details of what you are proposing.  I think if you give your
> >> binding gbeans
> >> the magic classLoader attribute everything will work.  This will
> >> be set to
> >> the configuration classloader for the configuration the gbean is
> >> in, not the
> >> configuration the gbeans class is loaded in.  This classloader
> >> should always
> >> have the necessary classes in it.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:39 AM, Manu George wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>  The problem we are facing regarding adapters is because
> >> the binding
> >> gbeans were added to the naming module of geronimo. We are
> >> planning to
> >> change this by creating a separate module for global jndi and then
> >> adding it
> >> as a dependency in the configuration that is getting deployed.
> >> This will be
> >> done in the builders.  All the reference creation logic can also
> >> be moved to
> >> the gbeans.The Binding GBeans will then have access to application
> >> level
> >> classes as they will be loaded in the app class loader.  We hope this
> >> approach will solve the current problem.  We will post the code
> >> again after
> >> making these changes.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Manu
> >>
> >> On 6/28/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > We have created  a JIRA
> >> > (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153  )
> >> and attached
> >> > the initial draft. We have tried two approaches.
> >> >
> >> > * Adding to plan
> >> > * Deploying from Builder.
> >> >
> >> > The EJBJNDIBindingGBean deploys from OpenEJBModuleBuilder and
> >> has a tag
> >> >in opene ejb plan.
> >> >
> >> > Resource Adapter and GBean have a gbean plan added to deployment
> >> plan.
> >> >
> >> >  >> >
> >> class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.jndi.ConnectorJNDIBindingGBean">
> >> >  >> name="configId">test/jms.rar/1.0/rar
> >> >  >> name="jndiName">globalJMSQueueFactory
> >> >  >> name="componentName">JMSQueueFactory
> >> >  >> name="j2eeType">JCAManagedConnectionFactory
> >> >  >> name="interfaceName">org.apache.geronimo.jms.connector.JMSQueueConnec
> >> tionFactory
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > and
> >> >
> >> >  >> >
> >> class="org.apache.geronimo.service.jndi.ServiceJNDIBindingGBean">
> >> > test/gbean/1.0/car
> >> > globalTestGBean
> >> > TestGBean
> >> > GBean
> >> > gbean.test.TestGBean
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > We have a Classloading issue when trying to maintain all the
> >> > BindingGbeans at one level. ( rmi-naming ). For GBeans and Resource
> >> > Adapters that are not J2EE interfaces like javax.sql.DataSource /
> >> > javax.jms.QueueConnectionFactory we get a ClassNotFound
> >> as the class
> >> > is not available at Classloader of rmi-naming.
> >> >
> >> > We spent a lot of time trying to solve this issue but are not
> >> able to
> >> > find a solution as the application level interface or class is not
> >> > available. This problem will not occur for j2ee interfaces like
> >> > DataSource, EJB interfaces, Queue, Topic etc..
> >> >
> >> > If the approach is correct we would like to add the other
> >> features to
> >> > make this more suitable for adding into the product.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Krishnakumar B
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 6/26/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > On 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource
> >> ne

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Krishnakumar B]

Hi David,

I have updated the JIRA-2153 with Context implementation and GBean
that binds to JNDI.

Kindly provide ur comments.

Regards
Krish


On 7/6/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

See my comment in the jira about this, I don't think you need to use
any naming References at all, nor do you need anything but a GBean
reference to the appropriate GBean.

http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153

thanks
david jencks

On Jul 6, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Krishnakumar B wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I tried this and it works for Custom Resource Adapters. There is still
> a problem for Registering GBeans in Global JNDI through the builder (
> ServiceConfigBuilder ). The Builder is a part of
> geronimo-gbean-deployer plan which is parent of j2ee-deployer.  The
> geronimo-naming jars are loaded in j2ee-deployer. Hence we dont get
> access in ServiceConfigBuilder to GBeanReference thats part of naming.
>
> Currently all the binding GBeans are in naming package. So it works
> for all j2ee deployments.
>
> Is there a way to work around this ClassLoading problem heirarchy for
> binding GBeans through builder?
>
> Regards
> Krishnakumar
>
>
> On 6/28/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I think there is a simpler solution, or perhaps I don't understand
>> all the
>> details of what you are proposing.  I think if you give your
>> binding gbeans
>> the magic classLoader attribute everything will work.  This will
>> be set to
>> the configuration classloader for the configuration the gbean is
>> in, not the
>> configuration the gbeans class is loaded in.  This classloader
>> should always
>> have the necessary classes in it.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:39 AM, Manu George wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  The problem we are facing regarding adapters is because
>> the binding
>> gbeans were added to the naming module of geronimo. We are
>> planning to
>> change this by creating a separate module for global jndi and then
>> adding it
>> as a dependency in the configuration that is getting deployed.
>> This will be
>> done in the builders.  All the reference creation logic can also
>> be moved to
>> the gbeans.The Binding GBeans will then have access to application
>> level
>> classes as they will be loaded in the app class loader.  We hope this
>> approach will solve the current problem.  We will post the code
>> again after
>> making these changes.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Manu
>>
>> On 6/28/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > We have created  a JIRA
>> > (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153  )
>> and attached
>> > the initial draft. We have tried two approaches.
>> >
>> > * Adding to plan
>> > * Deploying from Builder.
>> >
>> > The EJBJNDIBindingGBean deploys from OpenEJBModuleBuilder and
>> has a tag
>> >in opene ejb plan.
>> >
>> > Resource Adapter and GBean have a gbean plan added to deployment
>> plan.
>> >
>> > > >
>> class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.jndi.ConnectorJNDIBindingGBean">
>> > > name="configId">test/jms.rar/1.0/rar
>> > > name="jndiName">globalJMSQueueFactory
>> > > name="componentName">JMSQueueFactory
>> > > name="j2eeType">JCAManagedConnectionFactory
>> > > name="interfaceName">org.apache.geronimo.jms.connector.JMSQueueConnec
>> tionFactory
>> > 
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > > >
>> class="org.apache.geronimo.service.jndi.ServiceJNDIBindingGBean">
>> > test/gbean/1.0/car
>> > globalTestGBean
>> > TestGBean
>> > GBean
>> > gbean.test.TestGBean
>> > 
>> >
>> > We have a Classloading issue when trying to maintain all the
>> > BindingGbeans at one level. ( rmi-naming ). For GBeans and Resource
>> > Adapters that are not J2EE interfaces like javax.sql.DataSource /
>> > javax.jms.QueueConnectionFactory we get a ClassNotFound
>> as the class
>> > is not available at Classloader of rmi-naming.
>> >
>> > We spent a lot of time trying to solve this issue but are not
>> able to
>> > find a solution as the application level interface or class is not
>> > available. This problem will not occur for j2ee interfaces like
>> > DataSource, EJB interfaces, Queue, Topic etc..
>> >
>> > If the approach is correct we would like to add the other
>> features to
>> > make this more suitable for adding into the product.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Krishnakumar B
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/26/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > On 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource
>> needs to gets
>> > > > into Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to
>> geronimo: Context.
>> > > > This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a
>> connector it
>> > > > gets in global jndi.
>> > >
>> > > I might've misunderstood it, but isn't Global JNDI == geronimo:
>> > > context == global: context? If so, why is this copying from
>> Global
>> > > JNDI to the geronimo: namespace?
>> > >
>> > > Looking forward to seeing your patch for it. Just as Guillaume
>> > > suggested

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[David Jencks]

See my comment in the jira about this, I don't think you need to use  
any naming References at all, nor do you need anything but a GBean  
reference to the appropriate GBean.


http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153

thanks
david jencks

On Jul 6, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Krishnakumar B wrote:


Hi David,

I tried this and it works for Custom Resource Adapters. There is still
a problem for Registering GBeans in Global JNDI through the builder (
ServiceConfigBuilder ). The Builder is a part of
geronimo-gbean-deployer plan which is parent of j2ee-deployer.  The
geronimo-naming jars are loaded in j2ee-deployer. Hence we dont get
access in ServiceConfigBuilder to GBeanReference thats part of naming.

Currently all the binding GBeans are in naming package. So it works
for all j2ee deployments.

Is there a way to work around this ClassLoading problem heirarchy for
binding GBeans through builder?

Regards
Krishnakumar


On 6/28/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I think there is a simpler solution, or perhaps I don't understand  
all the
details of what you are proposing.  I think if you give your  
binding gbeans
the magic classLoader attribute everything will work.  This will  
be set to
the configuration classloader for the configuration the gbean is  
in, not the
configuration the gbeans class is loaded in.  This classloader  
should always

have the necessary classes in it.

thanks
david jencks


On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:39 AM, Manu George wrote:
Hi,
 The problem we are facing regarding adapters is because  
the binding
gbeans were added to the naming module of geronimo. We are  
planning to
change this by creating a separate module for global jndi and then  
adding it
as a dependency in the configuration that is getting deployed.  
This will be
done in the builders.  All the reference creation logic can also  
be moved to
the gbeans.The Binding GBeans will then have access to application  
level

classes as they will be loaded in the app class loader.  We hope this
approach will solve the current problem.  We will post the code  
again after

making these changes.

Thanks
Manu

On 6/28/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have created  a JIRA
> (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153  )
and attached
> the initial draft. We have tried two approaches.
>
> * Adding to plan
> * Deploying from Builder.
>
> The EJBJNDIBindingGBean deploys from OpenEJBModuleBuilder and  
has a tag

>in opene ejb plan.
>
> Resource Adapter and GBean have a gbean plan added to deployment  
plan.

>
> 
class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.jndi.ConnectorJNDIBindingGBean">
> test/jms.rar/1.0/rar
> globalJMSQueueFactory
> JMSQueueFactory
> JCAManagedConnectionFactory
> name="interfaceName">org.apache.geronimo.jms.connector.JMSQueueConnec 
tionFactory

> 
>
> and
>
> 
class="org.apache.geronimo.service.jndi.ServiceJNDIBindingGBean">
> test/gbean/1.0/car
> globalTestGBean
> TestGBean
> GBean
> gbean.test.TestGBean
> 
>
> We have a Classloading issue when trying to maintain all the
> BindingGbeans at one level. ( rmi-naming ). For GBeans and Resource
> Adapters that are not J2EE interfaces like javax.sql.DataSource /
> javax.jms.QueueConnectionFactory we get a ClassNotFound
as the class
> is not available at Classloader of rmi-naming.
>
> We spent a lot of time trying to solve this issue but are not  
able to

> find a solution as the application level interface or class is not
> available. This problem will not occur for j2ee interfaces like
> DataSource, EJB interfaces, Queue, Topic etc..
>
> If the approach is correct we would like to add the other  
features to

> make this more suitable for adding into the product.
>
> Regards
> Krishnakumar B
>
>
> On 6/26/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource  
needs to gets
> > > into Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to  
geronimo: Context.
> > > This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a  
connector it

> > > gets in global jndi.
> >
> > I might've misunderstood it, but isn't Global JNDI == geronimo:
> > context == global: context? If so, why is this copying from  
Global

> > JNDI to the geronimo: namespace?
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing your patch for it. Just as Guillaume
> > suggested, please create an JIRA issue and attach the patch to  
it.

> >
> > > Krishnakumar B
> >
> > Jacek
> >
> > --
> > Jacek Laskowski
> > http://www.laskowski.net.pl
> >
>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Krishnakumar B]

Hi David,

I tried this and it works for Custom Resource Adapters. There is still
a problem for Registering GBeans in Global JNDI through the builder (
ServiceConfigBuilder ). The Builder is a part of
geronimo-gbean-deployer plan which is parent of j2ee-deployer.  The
geronimo-naming jars are loaded in j2ee-deployer. Hence we dont get
access in ServiceConfigBuilder to GBeanReference thats part of naming.

Currently all the binding GBeans are in naming package. So it works
for all j2ee deployments.

Is there a way to work around this ClassLoading problem heirarchy for
binding GBeans through builder?

Regards
Krishnakumar


On 6/28/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I think there is a simpler solution, or perhaps I don't understand all the
details of what you are proposing.  I think if you give your binding gbeans
the magic classLoader attribute everything will work.  This will be set to
the configuration classloader for the configuration the gbean is in, not the
configuration the gbeans class is loaded in.  This classloader should always
have the necessary classes in it.

thanks
david jencks


On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:39 AM, Manu George wrote:
Hi,
 The problem we are facing regarding adapters is because the binding
gbeans were added to the naming module of geronimo. We are planning to
change this by creating a separate module for global jndi and then adding it
as a dependency in the configuration that is getting deployed. This will be
done in the builders.  All the reference creation logic can also be moved to
the gbeans.The Binding GBeans will then have access to application level
classes as they will be loaded in the app class loader.  We hope this
approach will solve the current problem.  We will post the code again after
making these changes.

Thanks
Manu

On 6/28/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have created  a JIRA
> (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153  )
and attached
> the initial draft. We have tried two approaches.
>
> * Adding to plan
> * Deploying from Builder.
>
> The EJBJNDIBindingGBean deploys from OpenEJBModuleBuilder and has a tag
>in opene ejb plan.
>
> Resource Adapter and GBean have a gbean plan added to deployment plan.
>
> 
class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.jndi.ConnectorJNDIBindingGBean">
> test/jms.rar/1.0/rar
> globalJMSQueueFactory
> JMSQueueFactory
> JCAManagedConnectionFactory
> org.apache.geronimo.jms.connector.JMSQueueConnectionFactory
> 
>
> and
>
> 
class="org.apache.geronimo.service.jndi.ServiceJNDIBindingGBean">
> test/gbean/1.0/car
> globalTestGBean
> TestGBean
> GBean
> gbean.test.TestGBean
> 
>
> We have a Classloading issue when trying to maintain all the
> BindingGbeans at one level. ( rmi-naming ). For GBeans and Resource
> Adapters that are not J2EE interfaces like javax.sql.DataSource /
> javax.jms.QueueConnectionFactory we get a ClassNotFound
as the class
> is not available at Classloader of rmi-naming.
>
> We spent a lot of time trying to solve this issue but are not able to
> find a solution as the application level interface or class is not
> available. This problem will not occur for j2ee interfaces like
> DataSource, EJB interfaces, Queue, Topic etc..
>
> If the approach is correct we would like to add the other features to
> make this more suitable for adding into the product.
>
> Regards
> Krishnakumar B
>
>
> On 6/26/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource needs to gets
> > > into Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to geronimo: Context.
> > > This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a connector it
> > > gets in global jndi.
> >
> > I might've misunderstood it, but isn't Global JNDI == geronimo:
> > context == global: context? If so, why is this copying from Global
> > JNDI to the geronimo: namespace?
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing your patch for it. Just as Guillaume
> > suggested, please create an JIRA issue and attach the patch to it.
> >
> > > Krishnakumar B
> >
> > Jacek
> >
> > --
> > Jacek Laskowski
> > http://www.laskowski.net.pl
> >
>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[David Jencks]

I think there is a simpler solution, or perhaps I don't understand all the details of what you are proposing.  I think if you give your binding gbeans the magic classLoader attribute everything will work.  This will be set to the configuration classloader for the configuration the gbean is in, not the configuration the gbeans class is loaded in.  This classloader should always have the necessary classes in it.thanksdavid jencksOn Jun 28, 2006, at 12:39 AM, Manu George wrote:Hi,  The problem we are facing regarding adapters is because the binding gbeans were added to the naming module of geronimo. We are planning to change this by creating a separate module for global jndi and then adding it as a dependency in the configuration that is getting deployed. This will be done in the builders.  All the reference creation logic can also be moved to the gbeans.The Binding GBeans will then have access to application level classes as they will be loaded in the app class loader.  We hope this approach will solve the current problem.  We will post the code again after making these changes.    Thanks ManuOn 6/28/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi,We have created  a JIRA(http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153  ) and attachedthe initial draft. We have tried two approaches. * Adding to plan* Deploying from Builder.The EJBJNDIBindingGBean deploys from OpenEJBModuleBuilder and has a tag   in opene ejb plan.Resource Adapter and GBean have a gbean plan added to deployment plan. class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.jndi.ConnectorJNDIBindingGBean">test/jms.rar/1.0/rar globalJMSQueueFactoryJMSQueueFactoryJCAManagedConnectionFactory org.apache.geronimo.jms.connector.JMSQueueConnectionFactoryand class="org.apache.geronimo.service.jndi.ServiceJNDIBindingGBean">test/gbean/1.0/carglobalTestGBean TestGBeanGBeangbean.test.TestGBean We have a Classloading issue when trying to maintain all theBindingGbeans at one level. ( rmi-naming ). For GBeans and ResourceAdapters that are not J2EE interfaces like javax.sql.DataSource /javax.jms.QueueConnectionFactory we get a ClassNotFound as the classis not available at Classloader of rmi-naming.We spent a lot of time trying to solve this issue but are not able tofind a solution as the application level interface or class is not available. This problem will not occur for j2ee interfaces likeDataSource, EJB interfaces, Queue, Topic etc..If the approach is correct we would like to add the other features tomake this more suitable for adding into the product. RegardsKrishnakumar BOn 6/26/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource needs to gets> > into Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to geronimo: Context.> > This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a connector it > > gets in global jndi.>> I might've misunderstood it, but isn't Global JNDI == geronimo:> context == global: context? If so, why is this copying from Global> JNDI to the geronimo: namespace? >> Looking forward to seeing your patch for it. Just as Guillaume> suggested, please create an JIRA issue and attach the patch to it.>> > Krishnakumar B>> Jacek> > --> Jacek Laskowski> http://www.laskowski.net.pl>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Manu George]

Hi,
 The problem we are
facing regarding adapters is because the binding gbeans were added to
the naming module of geronimo. We are planning to change this by
creating a separate module for global jndi and then adding it as a
dependency in the configuration that is getting deployed. This will be
done in the builders.  All the reference creation logic can also
be moved to the gbeans.The Binding GBeans will then have access to
application level classes as they will be loaded in the app class
loader.  We hope this approach will solve the current
problem.  We will post the code again after making these
changes.  

Thanks
ManuOn 6/28/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,We have created  a JIRA(http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153  ) and attachedthe initial draft. We have tried two approaches.
* Adding to plan* Deploying from Builder.The EJBJNDIBindingGBean deploys from OpenEJBModuleBuilder and has a tag   in opene ejb plan.Resource Adapter and GBean have a gbean plan added to deployment plan.
class="org.apache.geronimo.connector.jndi.ConnectorJNDIBindingGBean">test/jms.rar/1.0/rar
globalJMSQueueFactoryJMSQueueFactoryJCAManagedConnectionFactory
org.apache.geronimo.jms.connector.JMSQueueConnectionFactoryand
class="org.apache.geronimo.service.jndi.ServiceJNDIBindingGBean">test/gbean/1.0/carglobalTestGBean
TestGBeanGBeangbean.test.TestGBean
We have a Classloading issue when trying to maintain all theBindingGbeans at one level. ( rmi-naming ). For GBeans and ResourceAdapters that are not J2EE interfaces like javax.sql.DataSource
 /javax.jms.QueueConnectionFactory we get a ClassNotFound as the classis not available at Classloader of rmi-naming.We spent a lot of time trying to solve this issue but are not able tofind a solution as the application level interface or class is not
available. This problem will not occur for j2ee interfaces likeDataSource, EJB interfaces, Queue, Topic etc..If the approach is correct we would like to add the other features tomake this more suitable for adding into the product.
RegardsKrishnakumar BOn 6/26/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource needs to gets> > into Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to geronimo: Context.> > This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a connector it
> > gets in global jndi.>> I might've misunderstood it, but isn't Global JNDI == geronimo:> context == global: context? If so, why is this copying from Global> JNDI to the geronimo: namespace?
>> Looking forward to seeing your patch for it. Just as Guillaume> suggested, please create an JIRA issue and attach the patch to it.>> > Krishnakumar B>> Jacek>
> --> Jacek Laskowski> http://www.laskowski.net.pl>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Krishnakumar B]

Hi,

We have created  a JIRA
(http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153  ) and attached
the initial draft. We have tried two approaches.

* Adding to plan
* Deploying from Builder.

The EJBJNDIBindingGBean deploys from OpenEJBModuleBuilder and has a tag
  in opene ejb plan.

Resource Adapter and GBean have a gbean plan added to deployment plan.


test/jms.rar/1.0/rar
globalJMSQueueFactory
JMSQueueFactory
JCAManagedConnectionFactory
org.apache.geronimo.jms.connector.JMSQueueConnectionFactory


and


test/gbean/1.0/car
globalTestGBean
TestGBean
GBean
gbean.test.TestGBean


We have a Classloading issue when trying to maintain all the
BindingGbeans at one level. ( rmi-naming ). For GBeans and Resource
Adapters that are not J2EE interfaces like javax.sql.DataSource /
javax.jms.QueueConnectionFactory we get a ClassNotFound as the class
is not available at Classloader of rmi-naming.

We spent a lot of time trying to solve this issue but are not able to
find a solution as the application level interface or class is not
available. This problem will not occur for j2ee interfaces like
DataSource, EJB interfaces, Queue, Topic etc..

If the approach is correct we would like to add the other features to
make this more suitable for adding into the product.

Regards
Krishnakumar B


On 6/26/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource needs to gets
> into Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to geronimo: Context.
> This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a connector it
> gets in global jndi.

I might've misunderstood it, but isn't Global JNDI == geronimo:
context == global: context? If so, why is this copying from Global
JNDI to the geronimo: namespace?

Looking forward to seeing your patch for it. Just as Guillaume
suggested, please create an JIRA issue and attach the patch to it.

> Krishnakumar B

Jacek

--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Jacek Laskowski]

On 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource needs to gets
into Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to geronimo: Context.
This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a connector it
gets in global jndi.


I might've misunderstood it, but isn't Global JNDI == geronimo:
context == global: context? If so, why is this copying from Global
JNDI to the geronimo: namespace?

Looking forward to seeing your patch for it. Just as Guillaume
suggested, please create an JIRA issue and attach the patch to it.


Krishnakumar B


Jacek

--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Guillaume Nodet]

Could you raise a JIRA and attach the patch for review ?Thanks,Guillaume NodetOn 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:hi,We ( Me & Manu )  have created a implementation of global JNDI based
on the feedback received on the dev list.It works like this.* The implementation uses GeronimoRootContext and ReadOnlyContextthats part of naming module to create the root context ( geronimo: ).
The  Context is accessed by means of a FactoryGeronimoInitialContextFactory that implements InitialContextFactory.* A GBean ( GeronimoContextGBean ) loads on start of server andcreates the Root Context.  Now applications can bind to this context.
* We have added GBeans to naming ( GlobalJNDIBindingGBean for RA,DataSource, QCF/TCF,Queue, Topic  and EJBJNDIBindingGBean for EJB )that are deployed when an app is deployed.* The builders add the Gbeans during the deployment process. [
ConnectorModule Builder, OpenEJBModuleBuilder, ServiceConfigBuilder ].The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource needs to getsinto Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to geronimo: Context.
This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a connector itgets in global jndi.The current code we can add DataSource, RA, EJB, QCF, Queue/Topic,GBeans to geronimo: Context. With some changes to context
implementation any object can be bound to global JNDI. ( Have notlooked at security aspect and would need some ideas on how to proceed).This may need some more work and changes before it takes final form to
get into product. Kindly provide your review, comments andcontributions from others who are interested and have better ideas.We are not able to attach the code as mailing list rejects attachments.Regards
Krishnakumar BOn 5/24/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Thanks for the feedback and inputs.>> Regards> Krishnakumar
>>> On 5/24/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > On May 23, 2006, at 5:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:> >> > >> > > On May 23, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Krishnakumar B wrote:
> > >> > >> Hi,> > >>> > >> I have a few doubts related to implementation of global jndi.> > >>> > >> * Currently we have java:comp/env stored in Local JNDI. In Global
> > >> JNDI> > >> should objects be bound using a different namespace e.g) java: or> > >> java:global?> > >> > > IIUC java: is reserved by the j2ee spec for what it requires: thus
> > > IMO we should use something else.  IIRC the original global jndi> > > context used geronimo:  I'm OK with that or maybe global:.> >> > IIRC some servers use just "/foo/bar" with no context.  If I am
> > correct, we should support that also (but not the default).> >> > >>> > >> * When we implement global JNDI we have some entries in Global and> > >> All
> > >> entries related to application in Local. When a user creates a> > >> context> > >> he needs to get from either global or local based on what he needs.> > >> Would it be right for lookup code to decide from where to fetch the
> > >> entry based on how the Context is created?> > >>> > >> for e.g) if i say InitialContext iniCtx = new> > >> InitialContext("java:comp/env"); fetch from local
> > >> and if InitialContext iniCtx = new InitialContext("java:global");> > >> fetch from global> > >> > > I'm not sure what you're asking about here.  Unless you do
> > > something screwy to link one of these to the other, the contents of> > > these contexts will be completely unrelated.> >> > Looking at the JavaDocs for InitialContext, it does not have a
> > constructor that takes a String.  Did you mean:> >> >   Context context = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("java:comp/> > env");> >   Context context = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("global:");
> >> > >> * Currently in Local JNDI we store Resource References. Should global> > >> JNDI also use the same approach or can we use Object references for> > >> e.g
) DataSource reference directly put in JNDI> > >> > > For j2ee components I think we should bind the same kinds of> > > References in the global jndi tree as we bind in the current java:
> > > context.  What we bind for stuff that can't get into the java:> > > context needs more thought: it probably depends on what it is.  Of> > > course if the context is not read-only an app can bind whatever it
> > > wants wherever it wants, thus bringing to mind the need for> > > security and permissions for this stuff.> >> > I don't think we can use the current Reference object we bind into
> > our read only context because they do cache the value and never> > release it.  It is expected that the referece will be GCed when the> > J2EE application is unloaded.  It shouldn't be hard to either turn
> > off the cache or to register listener for the reference target life-> > cycle events.> >> > >> Would appreciate any thoughts as i am still learning and might have> > >> missed some points to consider while trying to implement something
> > >> like this.> > >> > > My plan for implementing this was:> > >> > > 1. Look at the current ReadOnlyCont

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Krishnakumar B]

hi,

We ( Me & Manu )  have created a implementation of global JNDI based
on the feedback received on the dev list.

It works like this.

* The implementation uses GeronimoRootContext and ReadOnlyContext
thats part of naming module to create the root context ( geronimo: ).
The  Context is accessed by means of a Factory
GeronimoInitialContextFactory that implements InitialContextFactory.

* A GBean ( GeronimoContextGBean ) loads on start of server and
creates the Root Context.  Now applications can bind to this context.

* We have added GBeans to naming ( GlobalJNDIBindingGBean for RA,
DataSource, QCF/TCF,Queue, Topic  and EJBJNDIBindingGBean for EJB )
that are deployed when an app is deployed.

* The builders add the Gbeans during the deployment process. [
ConnectorModule Builder, OpenEJBModuleBuilder, ServiceConfigBuilder ].

The plan needs to have some XML Tag to say this resource needs to gets
into Global JNDI and the builder can then add it to geronimo: Context.
This is not implemented yet. Currently if we deploy a connector it
gets in global jndi.

The current code we can add DataSource, RA, EJB, QCF, Queue/Topic,
GBeans to geronimo: Context. With some changes to context
implementation any object can be bound to global JNDI. ( Have not
looked at security aspect and would need some ideas on how to proceed
).

This may need some more work and changes before it takes final form to
get into product. Kindly provide your review, comments and
contributions from others who are interested and have better ideas.

We are not able to attach the code as mailing list rejects attachments.

Regards
Krishnakumar B


On 5/24/06, Krishnakumar B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback and inputs.

Regards
Krishnakumar


On 5/24/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 23, 2006, at 5:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> >
> > On May 23, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Krishnakumar B wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a few doubts related to implementation of global jndi.
> >>
> >> * Currently we have java:comp/env stored in Local JNDI. In Global
> >> JNDI
> >> should objects be bound using a different namespace e.g) java: or
> >> java:global?
> >
> > IIUC java: is reserved by the j2ee spec for what it requires: thus
> > IMO we should use something else.  IIRC the original global jndi
> > context used geronimo:  I'm OK with that or maybe global:.
>
> IIRC some servers use just "/foo/bar" with no context.  If I am
> correct, we should support that also (but not the default).
>
> >>
> >> * When we implement global JNDI we have some entries in Global and
> >> All
> >> entries related to application in Local. When a user creates a
> >> context
> >> he needs to get from either global or local based on what he needs.
> >> Would it be right for lookup code to decide from where to fetch the
> >> entry based on how the Context is created?
> >>
> >> for e.g) if i say InitialContext iniCtx = new
> >> InitialContext("java:comp/env"); fetch from local
> >> and if InitialContext iniCtx = new InitialContext("java:global");
> >> fetch from global
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're asking about here.  Unless you do
> > something screwy to link one of these to the other, the contents of
> > these contexts will be completely unrelated.
>
> Looking at the JavaDocs for InitialContext, it does not have a
> constructor that takes a String.  Did you mean:
>
>   Context context = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("java:comp/
> env");
>   Context context = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("global:");
>
> >> * Currently in Local JNDI we store Resource References. Should global
> >> JNDI also use the same approach or can we use Object references for
> >> e.g) DataSource reference directly put in JNDI
> >
> > For j2ee components I think we should bind the same kinds of
> > References in the global jndi tree as we bind in the current java:
> > context.  What we bind for stuff that can't get into the java:
> > context needs more thought: it probably depends on what it is.  Of
> > course if the context is not read-only an app can bind whatever it
> > wants wherever it wants, thus bringing to mind the need for
> > security and permissions for this stuff.
>
> I don't think we can use the current Reference object we bind into
> our read only context because they do cache the value and never
> release it.  It is expected that the referece will be GCed when the
> J2EE application is unloaded.  It shouldn't be hard to either turn
> off the cache or to register listener for the reference target life-
> cycle events.
>
> >> Would appreciate any thoughts as i am still learning and might have
> >> missed some points to consider while trying to implement something
> >> like this.
> >
> > My plan for implementing this was:
> >
> > 1. Look at the current ReadOnlyContext implementation and figure
> > out how to make a sufficiently synchronized version of it.  I'm
> > hoping that we can have synchronized wrappers around this
> > implementation rather th

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Krishnakumar B]

Thanks for the feedback and inputs.

Regards
Krishnakumar


On 5/24/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On May 23, 2006, at 5:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On May 23, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Krishnakumar B wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a few doubts related to implementation of global jndi.
>>
>> * Currently we have java:comp/env stored in Local JNDI. In Global
>> JNDI
>> should objects be bound using a different namespace e.g) java: or
>> java:global?
>
> IIUC java: is reserved by the j2ee spec for what it requires: thus
> IMO we should use something else.  IIRC the original global jndi
> context used geronimo:  I'm OK with that or maybe global:.

IIRC some servers use just "/foo/bar" with no context.  If I am
correct, we should support that also (but not the default).

>>
>> * When we implement global JNDI we have some entries in Global and
>> All
>> entries related to application in Local. When a user creates a
>> context
>> he needs to get from either global or local based on what he needs.
>> Would it be right for lookup code to decide from where to fetch the
>> entry based on how the Context is created?
>>
>> for e.g) if i say InitialContext iniCtx = new
>> InitialContext("java:comp/env"); fetch from local
>> and if InitialContext iniCtx = new InitialContext("java:global");
>> fetch from global
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking about here.  Unless you do
> something screwy to link one of these to the other, the contents of
> these contexts will be completely unrelated.

Looking at the JavaDocs for InitialContext, it does not have a
constructor that takes a String.  Did you mean:

  Context context = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("java:comp/
env");
  Context context = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("global:");

>> * Currently in Local JNDI we store Resource References. Should global
>> JNDI also use the same approach or can we use Object references for
>> e.g) DataSource reference directly put in JNDI
>
> For j2ee components I think we should bind the same kinds of
> References in the global jndi tree as we bind in the current java:
> context.  What we bind for stuff that can't get into the java:
> context needs more thought: it probably depends on what it is.  Of
> course if the context is not read-only an app can bind whatever it
> wants wherever it wants, thus bringing to mind the need for
> security and permissions for this stuff.

I don't think we can use the current Reference object we bind into
our read only context because they do cache the value and never
release it.  It is expected that the referece will be GCed when the
J2EE application is unloaded.  It shouldn't be hard to either turn
off the cache or to register listener for the reference target life-
cycle events.

>> Would appreciate any thoughts as i am still learning and might have
>> missed some points to consider while trying to implement something
>> like this.
>
> My plan for implementing this was:
>
> 1. Look at the current ReadOnlyContext implementation and figure
> out how to make a sufficiently synchronized version of it.  I'm
> hoping that we can have synchronized wrappers around this
> implementation rather than needing a copy, subclass, or new
> implementation.

I think a read only JNDI and a mutable one are different enough that
they need separate implementations.  Currently our ENC is using a the
EnterpriseNamingContext which does not extend ReadOnlyContext (as it
isn't really read only).  I'd like to keep the
EnterpriseNamingContext simple and strictly read only.  Therefore,
I'd like to see an new separate implementation.  If I were going to
write it, I'd base it on ConcurrentReaderHashMap and future objects
in Java5 (or backport-concurrent-util), but I'm not writing it, so I
say do whatever you are comfortable with.

> 2. Remind myself of how the geronimo: context used to be
> installed.  I think the same method will still work.  We might want
> a gbean to specifically install it.  Make sure that programmatic
> binding and lookup works.

IIRC, we add set naming provider package to
org.apache.geronimo.naming and when a user tries to access the "foo:"
root-context, the jvm looks for the class
org.apache.geronimo.naming.foo.fooURLContextFactory.  We still have
one named global that most likely gets loaded when someone looks up
"global:"

> 3. Figure out how to bind stuff into this context from plans rather
> than java code.  Currently my idea is to do this with binding
> gbeans: I'm not entirely sure how to do this but one possibility
> would be to have them contain a Reference object and the name to
> bind it under.  Another possibility would be to not use References
> but rather have a binding gbean with say a gbean  reference to a
> ManagedConnectionFactoryWrapper: the gbean would call $getResource
> () on it and then bind the result directly into jndi.  This would
> result in simpler builders but more gbeans: we'd need one for
> resource-refs and resource-env-refs, and another one for ejbs, and
>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Dain Sundstrom]

On May 23, 2006, at 5:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:



On May 23, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Krishnakumar B wrote:


Hi,

I have a few doubts related to implementation of global jndi.

* Currently we have java:comp/env stored in Local JNDI. In Global  
JNDI

should objects be bound using a different namespace e.g) java: or
java:global?


IIUC java: is reserved by the j2ee spec for what it requires: thus  
IMO we should use something else.  IIRC the original global jndi  
context used geronimo:  I'm OK with that or maybe global:.


IIRC some servers use just "/foo/bar" with no context.  If I am  
correct, we should support that also (but not the default).




* When we implement global JNDI we have some entries in Global and  
All
entries related to application in Local. When a user creates a  
context

he needs to get from either global or local based on what he needs.
Would it be right for lookup code to decide from where to fetch the
entry based on how the Context is created?

for e.g) if i say InitialContext iniCtx = new
InitialContext("java:comp/env"); fetch from local
and if InitialContext iniCtx = new InitialContext("java:global");
fetch from global


I'm not sure what you're asking about here.  Unless you do  
something screwy to link one of these to the other, the contents of  
these contexts will be completely unrelated.


Looking at the JavaDocs for InitialContext, it does not have a  
constructor that takes a String.  Did you mean:


  Context context = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("java:comp/ 
env");

  Context context = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("global:");


* Currently in Local JNDI we store Resource References. Should global
JNDI also use the same approach or can we use Object references for
e.g) DataSource reference directly put in JNDI


For j2ee components I think we should bind the same kinds of  
References in the global jndi tree as we bind in the current java:  
context.  What we bind for stuff that can't get into the java:  
context needs more thought: it probably depends on what it is.  Of  
course if the context is not read-only an app can bind whatever it  
wants wherever it wants, thus bringing to mind the need for  
security and permissions for this stuff.


I don't think we can use the current Reference object we bind into  
our read only context because they do cache the value and never  
release it.  It is expected that the referece will be GCed when the  
J2EE application is unloaded.  It shouldn't be hard to either turn  
off the cache or to register listener for the reference target life- 
cycle events.



Would appreciate any thoughts as i am still learning and might have
missed some points to consider while trying to implement something
like this.


My plan for implementing this was:

1. Look at the current ReadOnlyContext implementation and figure  
out how to make a sufficiently synchronized version of it.  I'm  
hoping that we can have synchronized wrappers around this  
implementation rather than needing a copy, subclass, or new  
implementation.


I think a read only JNDI and a mutable one are different enough that  
they need separate implementations.  Currently our ENC is using a the  
EnterpriseNamingContext which does not extend ReadOnlyContext (as it  
isn't really read only).  I'd like to keep the  
EnterpriseNamingContext simple and strictly read only.  Therefore,  
I'd like to see an new separate implementation.  If I were going to  
write it, I'd base it on ConcurrentReaderHashMap and future objects  
in Java5 (or backport-concurrent-util), but I'm not writing it, so I  
say do whatever you are comfortable with.


2. Remind myself of how the geronimo: context used to be  
installed.  I think the same method will still work.  We might want  
a gbean to specifically install it.  Make sure that programmatic  
binding and lookup works.


IIRC, we add set naming provider package to  
org.apache.geronimo.naming and when a user tries to access the "foo:"  
root-context, the jvm looks for the class  
org.apache.geronimo.naming.foo.fooURLContextFactory.  We still have  
one named global that most likely gets loaded when someone looks up  
"global:"


3. Figure out how to bind stuff into this context from plans rather  
than java code.  Currently my idea is to do this with binding  
gbeans: I'm not entirely sure how to do this but one possibility  
would be to have them contain a Reference object and the name to  
bind it under.  Another possibility would be to not use References  
but rather have a binding gbean with say a gbean  reference to a  
ManagedConnectionFactoryWrapper: the gbean would call $getResource 
() on it and then bind the result directly into jndi.  This would  
result in simpler builders but more gbeans: we'd need one for  
resource-refs and resource-env-refs, and another one for ejbs, and  
another for plain gbean bindings.  One thing I like about this  
second plan is that  the object would only be bound in jndi while  
the resource w

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[David Jencks]

On May 23, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Krishnakumar B wrote:


Hi,

I have a few doubts related to implementation of global jndi.

* Currently we have java:comp/env stored in Local JNDI. In Global JNDI
should objects be bound using a different namespace e.g) java: or
java:global?


IIUC java: is reserved by the j2ee spec for what it requires: thus  
IMO we should use something else.  IIRC the original global jndi  
context used geronimo:  I'm OK with that or maybe global:.




* When we implement global JNDI we have some entries in Global and All
entries related to application in Local. When a user creates a context
he needs to get from either global or local based on what he needs.
Would it be right for lookup code to decide from where to fetch the
entry based on how the Context is created?

for e.g) if i say InitialContext iniCtx = new
InitialContext("java:comp/env"); fetch from local
and if InitialContext iniCtx = new InitialContext("java:global");
fetch from global


I'm not sure what you're asking about here.  Unless you do something  
screwy to link one of these to the other, the contents of these  
contexts will be completely unrelated.




* Currently in Local JNDI we store Resource References. Should global
JNDI also use the same approach or can we use Object references for
e.g) DataSource reference directly put in JNDI


For j2ee components I think we should bind the same kinds of  
References in the global jndi tree as we bind in the current java:  
context.  What we bind for stuff that can't get into the java:  
context needs more thought: it probably depends on what it is.  Of  
course if the context is not read-only an app can bind whatever it  
wants wherever it wants, thus bringing to mind the need for security  
and permissions for this stuff.


Would appreciate any thoughts as i am still learning and might have
missed some points to consider while trying to implement something
like this.


My plan for implementing this was:

1. Look at the current ReadOnlyContext implementation and figure out  
how to make a sufficiently synchronized version of it.  I'm hoping  
that we can have synchronized wrappers around this implementation  
rather than needing a copy, subclass, or new implementation.


2. Remind myself of how the geronimo: context used to be installed.   
I think the same method will still work.  We might want a gbean to  
specifically install it.  Make sure that programmatic binding and  
lookup works.


3. Figure out how to bind stuff into this context from plans rather  
than java code.  Currently my idea is to do this with binding gbeans:  
I'm not entirely sure how to do this but one possibility would be to  
have them contain a Reference object and the name to bind it under.   
Another possibility would be to not use References but rather have a  
binding gbean with say a gbean  reference to a  
ManagedConnectionFactoryWrapper: the gbean would call $getResource()  
on it and then bind the result directly into jndi.  This would result  
in simpler builders but more gbeans: we'd need one for resource-refs  
and resource-env-refs, and another one for ejbs, and another for  
plain gbean bindings.  One thing I like about this second plan is  
that  the object would only be bound in jndi while the resource was  
actually available.  Of course, the component that looks up the entry  
can still keep it until the underlying gbean support is long gone,  
and get exceptions when it tries to use the entry.


I was planning to work on this for 1.2, but I will be more than happy  
to work with you if you would like to implement it.  Please let us  
know of your intentions, progress, and please, if you decide not to  
implement it let us know :-)


I'll be mostly offline for the next few days but will try to check  
for messages and respond as often as I can.


many thanks
david jencks



Regards
Krishnakumar


On 4/28/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I think we need to provide a non-persistent r/w global jndi tree
> since there are so many apps that depend on it.  In addition, I
> think we need a way for users to provide a set of bindings (JNDI,
> cos-naming, jaxr... really anything) to EJBs, RAs, and any GBean so
> that the services they need are available where their application
> expect.
>
> I have been thinking about the binding problem for a while and just
> haven't had time to work on it myself.  I think we can do something
> as simple as this for most services:
>
>  class="org.apache.geronimo.naming.JndiBinding">
>myService
>services/myService
> 
>
> For J2EE services we want to bind, I think the xml above is way to
> complex and we need to provide some syntactic sugar.

That's basically what I had in mind, but expressed more clearly and
concretely

thanks
david jencks

>
> -dain
>
> On Apr 27, 2006, at 1:22 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced this discussion has got to the hard parts
>> yet :-)  I hope ther

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Krishnakumar B]

Hi,

I have a few doubts related to implementation of global jndi.

* Currently we have java:comp/env stored in Local JNDI. In Global JNDI
should objects be bound using a different namespace e.g) java: or
java:global?

* When we implement global JNDI we have some entries in Global and All
entries related to application in Local. When a user creates a context
he needs to get from either global or local based on what he needs.
Would it be right for lookup code to decide from where to fetch the
entry based on how the Context is created?

for e.g) if i say InitialContext iniCtx = new
InitialContext("java:comp/env"); fetch from local
and if InitialContext iniCtx = new InitialContext("java:global");
fetch from global

* Currently in Local JNDI we store Resource References. Should global
JNDI also use the same approach or can we use Object references for
e.g) DataSource reference directly put in JNDI

Would appreciate any thoughts as i am still learning and might have
missed some points to consider while trying to implement something
like this.

Regards
Krishnakumar


On 4/28/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I think we need to provide a non-persistent r/w global jndi tree
> since there are so many apps that depend on it.  In addition, I
> think we need a way for users to provide a set of bindings (JNDI,
> cos-naming, jaxr... really anything) to EJBs, RAs, and any GBean so
> that the services they need are available where their application
> expect.
>
> I have been thinking about the binding problem for a while and just
> haven't had time to work on it myself.  I think we can do something
> as simple as this for most services:
>
>  class="org.apache.geronimo.naming.JndiBinding">
>myService
>services/myService
> 
>
> For J2EE services we want to bind, I think the xml above is way to
> complex and we need to provide some syntactic sugar.

That's basically what I had in mind, but expressed more clearly and
concretely

thanks
david jencks

>
> -dain
>
> On Apr 27, 2006, at 1:22 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced this discussion has got to the hard parts
>> yet :-)  I hope there turn out not to be any :-)
>>
>> Please don't change stuff in the read-only java:comp/env context
>> since it is pretty much completely specified by the spec.  Note
>> also that according to the spec a j2ee compliant app will only use
>> this jndi context, and only use the entries defined in the j2ee
>> deployment descriptors.
>>
>> I think you can use a lot of the jndi infrastructure we already
>> have including the geronimo context and the references to jca
>> connection factories, ejbs, etc.
>>
>> The missing part is how to get these references bound into your
>> context.  One approach is to write gbeans that install a reference
>> when started and remove it when stopped.  I would start by just
>> including these as plain gbeans in plans, and once that works
>> consider modifying the builders to add them automatically based on
>> xml in the geronimo plans.
>>
>> An alternative might be to investigating using say Directory to
>> persist the references directly.  I don't know enough about ldap
>> to know if this makes any sense at all.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Manu George wrote:
>>
>>> Comments inline
>>>
>>> On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote: Looking more closely, it seems I was wrong.
>>> Gbeans with a j2eeType=JCAManagedConnectionFactory have a
>>> connectionFactoryInterface attribute that gives the name of the main
>>> interface to use when binding the object to the JNDI context.
>>> For EJB, GBeans with a j2eeType=StatelessSessionBean (or
>>> EntityBean ...)
>>> have attributes for the home and business interfaces.
>>> So i guess it should be ok.
>>>
>>> great
>>>
>>> Another way to handle that would be to bind the resource to the
>>> global
>>> JNDI tree when the resource is created: each configuration would
>>> contain
>>> a list of gbeans to bind in the jndi tree when the configuration is
>>> loaded.  Else, we will need some listener to listen to gbeans
>>> creation /
>>> destruction so that we can bind / unbind them from the global
>>> jndi context.
>>>
>>> Binding the resource during creation seems to be the simpler way.
>>> But what about the next time the server starts up. How is the
>>> context initialised? Do we populate during startup of each
>>> resource or application again or is persistence used in some way?
>>>
>>> In the case of listeners the above problem won't arise.
>>>
>>>
>>> A few questions:
>>> * I' m wondering how the global JNDI context will coexist with the
>>> existing ENC context, especially if the global jndi context is
>>> read-write ... Maybe there is no need for a local jndi context ...
>>>
>>> Yes that is a question i also have :-) . The local jndi context
>>> allows us to have app specific contexts and this has some
>>> advantages. A global jndi also has so

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[David Jencks]

On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

I think we need to provide a non-persistent r/w global jndi tree  
since there are so many apps that depend on it.  In addition, I  
think we need a way for users to provide a set of bindings (JNDI,  
cos-naming, jaxr... really anything) to EJBs, RAs, and any GBean so  
that the services they need are available where their application  
expect.


I have been thinking about the binding problem for a while and just  
haven't had time to work on it myself.  I think we can do something  
as simple as this for most services:


class="org.apache.geronimo.naming.JndiBinding">

   myService
   services/myService


For J2EE services we want to bind, I think the xml above is way to  
complex and we need to provide some syntactic sugar.


That's basically what I had in mind, but expressed more clearly and  
concretely


thanks
david jencks



-dain

On Apr 27, 2006, at 1:22 AM, David Jencks wrote:

I'm not convinced this discussion has got to the hard parts  
yet :-)  I hope there turn out not to be any :-)


Please don't change stuff in the read-only java:comp/env context  
since it is pretty much completely specified by the spec.  Note  
also that according to the spec a j2ee compliant app will only use  
this jndi context, and only use the entries defined in the j2ee  
deployment descriptors.


I think you can use a lot of the jndi infrastructure we already  
have including the geronimo context and the references to jca  
connection factories, ejbs, etc.


The missing part is how to get these references bound into your  
context.  One approach is to write gbeans that install a reference  
when started and remove it when stopped.  I would start by just  
including these as plain gbeans in plans, and once that works  
consider modifying the builders to add them automatically based on  
xml in the geronimo plans.


An alternative might be to investigating using say Directory to  
persist the references directly.  I don't know enough about ldap  
to know if this makes any sense at all.


thanks
david jencks

On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Manu George wrote:


Comments inline

On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote: Looking more closely, it seems I was wrong.

Gbeans with a j2eeType=JCAManagedConnectionFactory have a
connectionFactoryInterface attribute that gives the name of the main
interface to use when binding the object to the JNDI context.
For EJB, GBeans with a j2eeType=StatelessSessionBean (or  
EntityBean ...)

have attributes for the home and business interfaces.
So i guess it should be ok.

great

Another way to handle that would be to bind the resource to the  
global
JNDI tree when the resource is created: each configuration would  
contain

a list of gbeans to bind in the jndi tree when the configuration is
loaded.  Else, we will need some listener to listen to gbeans  
creation /
destruction so that we can bind / unbind them from the global  
jndi context.


Binding the resource during creation seems to be the simpler way.  
But what about the next time the server starts up. How is the  
context initialised? Do we populate during startup of each  
resource or application again or is persistence used in some way?


In the case of listeners the above problem won't arise.


A few questions:
* I' m wondering how the global JNDI context will coexist with the
existing ENC context, especially if the global jndi context is
read-write ... Maybe there is no need for a local jndi context ...

Yes that is a question i also have :-) . The local jndi context  
allows us to have app specific contexts and this has some  
advantages. A global jndi also has some advantages. Probably by  
default we can use the local context and if the user specifies a  
custom factory the global one or vice versa.


* what is the purpose of the jndiname property ? If this is the  
key for
a gbean in the jndi tree, I thought we could use the name  
attribute of

the gbean: "jdbc/TradeDataSource" , "jms/QueueConnectionFactory".

These names can also be TradeDatasource so then we may need to  
add jdbc and if jdbc is there in the name as you mentioned do we  
need to add jdbc to the name or not. These are a few issues which  
made me propose the jndiName property .


  * what about conflicting names for JCA resources... currently  
there is
nothing to prevent deploying JCA resource (or other resources  
that would

be bound to jndi) with the same name
I think deployment should fail with an resource already bound  
exception. Not sure if this or any other validation is  
implemented for the local context.



Thanks
Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Dain Sundstrom]

I think we need to provide a non-persistent r/w global jndi tree  
since there are so many apps that depend on it.  In addition, I think  
we need a way for users to provide a set of bindings (JNDI, cos- 
naming, jaxr... really anything) to EJBs, RAs, and any GBean so that  
the services they need are available where their application expect.


I have been thinking about the binding problem for a while and just  
haven't had time to work on it myself.  I think we can do something  
as simple as this for most services:


class="org.apache.geronimo.naming.JndiBinding">

   myService
   services/myService


For J2EE services we want to bind, I think the xml above is way to  
complex and we need to provide some syntactic sugar.


-dain

On Apr 27, 2006, at 1:22 AM, David Jencks wrote:

I'm not convinced this discussion has got to the hard parts  
yet :-)  I hope there turn out not to be any :-)


Please don't change stuff in the read-only java:comp/env context  
since it is pretty much completely specified by the spec.  Note  
also that according to the spec a j2ee compliant app will only use  
this jndi context, and only use the entries defined in the j2ee  
deployment descriptors.


I think you can use a lot of the jndi infrastructure we already  
have including the geronimo context and the references to jca  
connection factories, ejbs, etc.


The missing part is how to get these references bound into your  
context.  One approach is to write gbeans that install a reference  
when started and remove it when stopped.  I would start by just  
including these as plain gbeans in plans, and once that works  
consider modifying the builders to add them automatically based on  
xml in the geronimo plans.


An alternative might be to investigating using say Directory to  
persist the references directly.  I don't know enough about ldap to  
know if this makes any sense at all.


thanks
david jencks

On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Manu George wrote:


Comments inline

On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote: Looking more closely, it seems I was wrong.

Gbeans with a j2eeType=JCAManagedConnectionFactory have a
connectionFactoryInterface attribute that gives the name of the main
interface to use when binding the object to the JNDI context.
For EJB, GBeans with a j2eeType=StatelessSessionBean (or  
EntityBean ...)

have attributes for the home and business interfaces.
So i guess it should be ok.

great

Another way to handle that would be to bind the resource to the  
global
JNDI tree when the resource is created: each configuration would  
contain

a list of gbeans to bind in the jndi tree when the configuration is
loaded.  Else, we will need some listener to listen to gbeans  
creation /
destruction so that we can bind / unbind them from the global jndi  
context.


Binding the resource during creation seems to be the simpler way.  
But what about the next time the server starts up. How is the  
context initialised? Do we populate during startup of each  
resource or application again or is persistence used in some way?


In the case of listeners the above problem won't arise.


A few questions:
* I' m wondering how the global JNDI context will coexist with the
existing ENC context, especially if the global jndi context is
read-write ... Maybe there is no need for a local jndi context ...

Yes that is a question i also have :-) . The local jndi context  
allows us to have app specific contexts and this has some  
advantages. A global jndi also has some advantages. Probably by  
default we can use the local context and if the user specifies a  
custom factory the global one or vice versa.


* what is the purpose of the jndiname property ? If this is the  
key for
a gbean in the jndi tree, I thought we could use the name  
attribute of

the gbean: "jdbc/TradeDataSource" , "jms/QueueConnectionFactory".

These names can also be TradeDatasource so then we may need to add  
jdbc and if jdbc is there in the name as you mentioned do we need  
to add jdbc to the name or not. These are a few issues which made  
me propose the jndiName property .


  * what about conflicting names for JCA resources... currently  
there is
nothing to prevent deploying JCA resource (or other resources that  
would

be bound to jndi) with the same name
I think deployment should fail with an resource already bound  
exception. Not sure if this or any other validation is implemented  
for the local context.



Thanks
Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[David Jencks]

I'm not convinced this discussion has got to the hard parts yet :-)  I hope there turn out not to be any :-)Please don't change stuff in the read-only java:comp/env context since it is pretty much completely specified by the spec.  Note also that according to the spec a j2ee compliant app will only use this jndi context, and only use the entries defined in the j2ee deployment descriptors.I think you can use a lot of the jndi infrastructure we already have including the geronimo context and the references to jca connection factories, ejbs, etc.  The missing part is how to get these references bound into your context.  One approach is to write gbeans that install a reference when started and remove it when stopped.  I would start by just including these as plain gbeans in plans, and once that works consider modifying the builders to add them automatically based on xml in the geronimo plans.An alternative might be to investigating using say Directory to persist the references directly.  I don't know enough about ldap to know if this makes any sense at all.thanksdavid jencksOn Apr 26, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Manu George wrote:Comments inlineOn 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looking more closely, it seems I was wrong.Gbeans with a j2eeType=JCAManagedConnectionFactory have aconnectionFactoryInterface attribute that gives the name of the maininterface to use when binding the object to the JNDI context. For EJB, GBeans with a j2eeType=StatelessSessionBean (or EntityBean ...)have attributes for the home and business interfaces.So i guess it should be ok. great  Another way to handle that would be to bind the resource to the globalJNDI tree when the resource is created: each configuration would contain a list of gbeans to bind in the jndi tree when the configuration isloaded.  Else, we will need some listener to listen to gbeans creation /destruction so that we can bind / unbind them from the global jndi context.  Binding the resource during creation seems to be the simpler way. But what about the next time the server starts up. How is the context initialised? Do we populate during startup of each resource or application again or is persistence used in some way?  In the case of listeners the above problem won't arise.  A few questions: * I' m wondering how the global JNDI context will coexist with the existing ENC context, especially if the global jndi context isread-write ... Maybe there is no need for a local jndi context ... Yes that is a question i also have :-) . The local jndi context allows us to have app specific contexts and this has some advantages. A global jndi also has some advantages. Probably by default we can use the local context and if the user specifies a custom factory the global one or vice versa.   * what is the purpose of the jndiname property ? If this is the key fora gbean in the jndi tree, I thought we could use the name attribute of the gbean: "jdbc/TradeDataSource" , "jms/QueueConnectionFactory". These names can also be TradeDatasource so then we may need to add jdbc and if jdbc is there in the name as you mentioned do we need to add jdbc to the name or not. These are a few issues which made me propose the jndiName property .   * what about conflicting names for JCA resources... currently there isnothing to prevent deploying JCA resource (or other resources that would be bound to jndi) with the same nameI think deployment should fail with an resource already bound exception. Not sure if this or any other validation is implemented for the local context.  Thanks Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Manu George]

Comments inlineOn 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looking more closely, it seems I was wrong.Gbeans with a j2eeType=JCAManagedConnectionFactory have aconnectionFactoryInterface attribute that gives the name of the maininterface to use when binding the object to the JNDI context.
For EJB, GBeans with a j2eeType=StatelessSessionBean (or EntityBean ...)have attributes for the home and business interfaces.So i guess it should be ok.
great 
Another way to handle that would be to bind the resource to the globalJNDI tree when the resource is created: each configuration would contain
a list of gbeans to bind in the jndi tree when the configuration isloaded.  Else, we will need some listener to listen to gbeans creation /destruction so that we can bind / unbind them from the global jndi context.

Binding the resource during creation seems to be the simpler way. But
what about the next time the server starts up. How is the context
initialised? Do we populate during startup of each resource or
application again or is persistence used in some way?

In the case of listeners the above problem won't arise.

A few questions: * I' m wondering how the global JNDI context will coexist with the
existing ENC context, especially if the global jndi context isread-write ... Maybe there is no need for a local jndi context ...
Yes that is a question i also have :-) . The local jndi context allows
us to have app specific contexts and this has some advantages. A global
jndi also has some advantages. Probably by default we can use the local
context and if the user specifies a custom factory the global one or
vice versa. 
 * what is the purpose of the jndiname property ? If this is the key fora gbean in the jndi tree, I thought we could use the name attribute of
the gbean: "jdbc/TradeDataSource" , "jms/QueueConnectionFactory".
These names can also be TradeDatasource so then we may need to add jdbc
and if jdbc is there in the name as you mentioned do we need to add
jdbc to the name or not. These are a few issues which made me propose
the jndiName property .
  * what about conflicting names for JCA resources... currently there isnothing to prevent deploying JCA resource (or other resources that would
be bound to jndi) with the same nameI
think deployment should fail with an resource already bound exception.
Not sure if this or any other validation is implemented for the local
context.
 Thanks
Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Manu George]

I agree with what Dain said.  I also believe that as the spec says
the J2EE component enviroment should not be writable and we need not
provide any option for that either. It is not necessary. Apps can bind
to other namespaces.On 4/26/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you planning on making the J2EE component enviroment (java:comp/env) writable?  I can see making the global tree writable, but amconcerned about making the component environment itself writable.The J2EE 1.4
 spec page 64 states:The container must ensure that the application component instanceshave onlyread access to their environment variables. The container must throw thejavax.naming.OperationNotSupportedException
 from all the methods of thejavax.naming.Context interface that modify the environment namingcontextand its subcontextsI suppose we could add an optional flag for non-compliantapplications to allow them to modify their environment, but I think
the default for the component environment should be read-only.BTW, I am in favor of making everything else writable.-dainOn Apr 26, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Manu George wrote:> Hi, Guillaume
>I guess if a writable context is implemented still the approach> given above should work.   As we will be using the ENCConfigBuilder> only to populate the ENC during startup the interfaces can be used
> to refer to the gbeans representing the deployed artefacts.> Whatever we will be writing to context from apps would be done> after startup of server and lost at shutdown.  So there would not> be any problem due to geronimo using interfaces to get the GBean
> names as what we will be adding at runtime will not be gbeans and> we will not use ENCConfigBuilder.  Am I right?>> Now a new property for jndiname will also be required in the plans> for the connectors.
>> P.S.This property was actually present in the older versions of> geronimo but was removed. I also remember david jencks mentioning> in the mailing list that he had a working implementation of a
> context which he removed for some reason.>> Thanks> Manu>>> >> >On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> >> >> >>When a JNDI context is created for a given configuration, the> interface> >>name is used to determine the name of the gbean that will be> mapped to
> >>this JNDI reference (and to create a proxy ?).> >>Take a look at o.a.g.naming.ENCConfigBuilder#addResourceRefs.> >>But I guess this is irrelevant if the objects are bound when they
> are> >>created.> >>> >>Btw, should the global JNDI tree be read-only, or read-write ?> >>IMHO, a read-write global JNDI tree would be very usefull.> >>
> >>Cheers,> >>Guillaume Nodet> >>> >>> >>Manu George wrote:> >>> >>> >>> >>>Thanks David.> >>>
> >>>Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you referring where> >>>geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are you speaking of> >>>UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard names that we
> can> >>>use to access them and will not be provided in DD? Please> clarify and> >>>correct me if I am wrong.>  >>>Thanks> >>>Manu
>  >>>On 4/25/06, *David Jencks* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:>  >>>It's required for corba ejb references.>  >>>david jencks>  >>>On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:
>  >>>> Hi,>
>>>>
I have a question regarding one of the objects> present in> >>>> the current application local JNDI Context. What is the> >>>> HandleDelegate entry for?> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks> >>>> Manu>     >> >> >> >>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Dain Sundstrom]

Are you planning on making the J2EE component enviroment (java:comp/ 
env) writable?  I can see making the global tree writable, but am  
concerned about making the component environment itself writable.   
The J2EE 1.4 spec page 64 states:


The container must ensure that the application component instances  
have only

read access to their environment variables. The container must throw the
javax.naming.OperationNotSupportedException from all the methods of the
javax.naming.Context interface that modify the environment naming  
context

and its subcontexts

I suppose we could add an optional flag for non-compliant  
applications to allow them to modify their environment, but I think  
the default for the component environment should be read-only.


BTW, I am in favor of making everything else writable.

-dain

On Apr 26, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Manu George wrote:


Hi, Guillaume
   I guess if a writable context is implemented still the approach  
given above should work.   As we will be using the ENCConfigBuilder  
only to populate the ENC during startup the interfaces can be used  
to refer to the gbeans representing the deployed artefacts.
Whatever we will be writing to context from apps would be done  
after startup of server and lost at shutdown.  So there would not  
be any problem due to geronimo using interfaces to get the GBean  
names as what we will be adding at runtime will not be gbeans and  
we will not use ENCConfigBuilder.  Am I right?


Now a new property for jndiname will also be required in the plans  
for the connectors.


P.S.This property was actually present in the older versions of  
geronimo but was removed. I also remember david jencks mentioning  
in the mailing list that he had a working implementation of a  
context which he removed for some reason.


Thanks
Manu


>
>On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>When a JNDI context is created for a given configuration, the  
interface
>>name is used to determine the name of the gbean that will be  
mapped to

>>this JNDI reference (and to create a proxy ?).
>>Take a look at o.a.g.naming.ENCConfigBuilder#addResourceRefs.
>>But I guess this is irrelevant if the objects are bound when they  
are

>>created.
>>
>>Btw, should the global JNDI tree be read-only, or read-write ?
>>IMHO, a read-write global JNDI tree would be very usefull.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Guillaume Nodet
>>
>>
>>Manu George wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thanks David.
>>>
>>>Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you referring where
>>>geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are you speaking of
>>>UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard names that we  
can
>>>use to access them and will not be provided in DD? Please  
clarify and

>>>correct me if I am wrong.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Manu
>>>
>>>On 4/25/06, *David Jencks* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>
>>>It's required for corba ejb references.
>>>
>>>david jencks
>>>
>>>On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I have a question regarding one of the objects  
present in

>>>> the current application local JNDI Context. What is the
>>>> HandleDelegate entry for?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Manu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Guillaume Nodet]

Looking more closely, it seems I was wrong.
Gbeans with a j2eeType=JCAManagedConnectionFactory have a 
connectionFactoryInterface attribute that gives the name of the main 
interface to use when binding the object to the JNDI context.
For EJB, GBeans with a j2eeType=StatelessSessionBean (or EntityBean ...) 
have attributes for the home and business interfaces.

So i guess it should be ok.

Another way to handle that would be to bind the resource to the global 
JNDI tree when the resource is created: each configuration would contain 
a list of gbeans to bind in the jndi tree when the configuration is 
loaded.  Else, we will need some listener to listen to gbeans creation / 
destruction so that we can bind / unbind them from the global jndi context.


A few questions:
* I' m wondering how the global JNDI context will coexist with the 
existing ENC context, especially if the global jndi context is 
read-write ... Maybe there is no need for a local jndi context ...
* what is the purpose of the jndiname property ? If this is the key for 
a gbean in the jndi tree, I thought we could use the name attribute of 
the gbean: "jdbc/TradeDataSource" , "jms/QueueConnectionFactory".
 * what about conflicting names for JCA resources... currently there is 
nothing to prevent deploying JCA resource (or other resources that would 
be bound to jndi) with the same name


Guillaume Nodet

Manu George wrote:


Hi, Guillaume
   I guess if a writable context is implemented still the approach 
given above should work.   As we will be using the ENCConfigBuilder 
only to populate the ENC during startup the interfaces can be used to 
refer to the gbeans representing the deployed artefacts.   Whatever we 
will be writing to context from apps would be done after startup of 
server and lost at shutdown.  So there would not be any problem due to 
geronimo using interfaces to get the GBean names as what we will be 
adding at runtime will not be gbeans and we will not use 
ENCConfigBuilder.  Am I right?


Now a new property for jndiname will also be required in the plans for 
the connectors.
 
P.S.This property was actually present in the older versions of 
geronimo but was removed. I also remember david jencks mentioning in 
the mailing list that he had a working implementation of a context 
which he removed for some reason.


Thanks
Manu


>
>On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>When a JNDI context is created for a given configuration, the
interface
>>name is used to determine the name of the gbean that will be
mapped to
>>this JNDI reference (and to create a proxy ?).
>>Take a look at o.a.g.naming.ENCConfigBuilder#addResourceRefs.
>>But I guess this is irrelevant if the objects are bound when
they are
>>created.
>>
>>Btw, should the global JNDI tree be read-only, or read-write ?
>>IMHO, a read-write global JNDI tree would be very usefull.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Guillaume Nodet
>>
>>
>>Manu George wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thanks David.
>>>
>>>Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you referring where
>>>geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are you speaking of
>>>UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard names that
we can
>>>use to access them and will not be provided in DD? Please
clarify and
>>>correct me if I am wrong.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Manu
>>>
>>>On 4/25/06, *David Jencks* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's required for corba ejb references.
>>>
>>>david jencks
>>>
>>>On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I have a question regarding one of the objects
present in
>>>> the current application local JNDI Context. What is the
>>>> HandleDelegate entry for?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Manu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Matt Hogstrom]

Its been noted that we need a R/W JNDI Impl.  I believe its on the roadmap.

Guillaume Nodet wrote:
When a JNDI context is created for a given configuration, the interface 
name is used to determine the name of the gbean that will be mapped to 
this JNDI reference (and to create a proxy ?).

Take a look at o.a.g.naming.ENCConfigBuilder#addResourceRefs.
But I guess this is irrelevant if the objects are bound when they are 
created.


Btw, should the global JNDI tree be read-only, or read-write ? IMHO, a 
read-write global JNDI tree would be very usefull.


Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet


Manu George wrote:


Thanks David.

Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you referring where 
geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are you speaking of 
UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard names that we can 
use to access them and will not be provided in DD? Please clarify and 
correct me if I am wrong.


Thanks
Manu

On 4/25/06, *David Jencks* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


It's required for corba ejb references.

david jencks

On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:

> Hi,
> I have a question regarding one of the objects present in
> the current application local JNDI Context. What is the
> HandleDelegate entry for?
>
> Thanks
> Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Manu George]

Hi, Guillaume
   I guess if a writable context is implemented still the
approach given above should work.   As we will be using the
ENCConfigBuilder only to populate the ENC during startup the interfaces
can be used to refer to the gbeans representing the deployed
artefacts.   Whatever we will be writing to context from apps
would be done after startup of server and lost at shutdown.  So
there would not be any problem due to geronimo using interfaces to get
the GBean names as what we will be adding at runtime will not be gbeans
and we will not use ENCConfigBuilder.  Am I right?

Now a new property for jndiname will also be required in the plans for the connectors. 
 
P.S.This property was actually present in the older versions of
geronimo but was removed. I also remember david jencks mentioning in
the mailing list that he had a working implementation of a context
which he removed for some reason. 

Thanks
Manu
>>On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:When a JNDI context is created for a given configuration, the interface>>name is used to determine the name of the gbean that will be mapped to
>>this JNDI reference (and to create a proxy ?).>>Take a look at o.a.g.naming.ENCConfigBuilder#addResourceRefs.>>But I guess this is irrelevant if the objects are bound when they are>>created.
Btw, should the global JNDI tree be read-only, or read-write ?>>IMHO, a read-write global JNDI tree would be very usefull.Cheers,>>Guillaume Nodet>>
Manu George wrote:>Thanks David.>>Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you referring where>>>geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are you speaking of
>>>UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard names that we can>>>use to access them and will not be provided in DD? Please clarify and>>>correct me if I am wrong.>>>
>>>Thanks>>>Manu>>On 4/25/06, *David Jencks* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>>It's required for corba ejb references.>>david jencks>>On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:
>>> Hi,>>>>
I have a question regarding one of the objects present in>>>> the current application local JNDI Context. What is the>>>> HandleDelegate entry for?>>>> Thanks
>>>> Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Guillaume Nodet]

It seems that these informations are stored in the configuration which 
is serialized and loaded when the configuration is started.


Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Krishnakumar B wrote:


Hi Guillaume,

The ENCConfigBuilder and ComponentContextBuilder are called when u
deploy an application and need a JNDI reference. How does it happen
when u start the app server with some apps already deployed? How is
the Context built?

Regards
Krish

On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


When a JNDI context is created for a given configuration, the interface
name is used to determine the name of the gbean that will be mapped to
this JNDI reference (and to create a proxy ?).
Take a look at o.a.g.naming.ENCConfigBuilder#addResourceRefs.
But I guess this is irrelevant if the objects are bound when they are
created.

Btw, should the global JNDI tree be read-only, or read-write ?
IMHO, a read-write global JNDI tree would be very usefull.

Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet


Manu George wrote:

   


Thanks David.

Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you referring where
geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are you speaking of
UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard names that we can
use to access them and will not be provided in DD? Please clarify and
correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks
Manu

On 4/25/06, *David Jencks* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

   It's required for corba ejb references.

   david jencks

   On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:

   > Hi,
   > I have a question regarding one of the objects present in
   > the current application local JNDI Context. What is the
   > HandleDelegate entry for?
   >
   > Thanks
   > Manu


 




 

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Krishnakumar B]

Hi Guillaume,

The ENCConfigBuilder and ComponentContextBuilder are called when u
deploy an application and need a JNDI reference. How does it happen
when u start the app server with some apps already deployed? How is
the Context built?

Regards
Krish

On 4/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When a JNDI context is created for a given configuration, the interface
> name is used to determine the name of the gbean that will be mapped to
> this JNDI reference (and to create a proxy ?).
> Take a look at o.a.g.naming.ENCConfigBuilder#addResourceRefs.
> But I guess this is irrelevant if the objects are bound when they are
> created.
>
> Btw, should the global JNDI tree be read-only, or read-write ?
> IMHO, a read-write global JNDI tree would be very usefull.
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
>
> Manu George wrote:
>
> > Thanks David.
> >
> > Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you referring where
> > geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are you speaking of
> > UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard names that we can
> > use to access them and will not be provided in DD? Please clarify and
> > correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Manu
> >
> > On 4/25/06, *David Jencks* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > It's required for corba ejb references.
> >
> > david jencks
> >
> > On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I have a question regarding one of the objects present in
> > > the current application local JNDI Context. What is the
> > > HandleDelegate entry for?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Manu
> >
> >
>

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Guillaume Nodet]

When a JNDI context is created for a given configuration, the interface 
name is used to determine the name of the gbean that will be mapped to 
this JNDI reference (and to create a proxy ?).

Take a look at o.a.g.naming.ENCConfigBuilder#addResourceRefs.
But I guess this is irrelevant if the objects are bound when they are 
created.


Btw, should the global JNDI tree be read-only, or read-write ? 
IMHO, a read-write global JNDI tree would be very usefull.


Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet


Manu George wrote:


Thanks David.

Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you referring where 
geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are you speaking of 
UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard names that we can 
use to access them and will not be provided in DD? Please clarify and 
correct me if I am wrong.


Thanks
Manu

On 4/25/06, *David Jencks* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


It's required for corba ejb references.

david jencks

On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:

> Hi,
> I have a question regarding one of the objects present in
> the current application local JNDI Context. What is the
> HandleDelegate entry for?
>
> Thanks
> Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Manu George]

Thanks David.

Guillaume , Which proxy in the JNDI Tree are you
referring where geronimo requires the main interface name?  Are
you speaking of UserTransaction etc? I thought those were standard
names that we can use to access them and will not be provided in DD?
Please clarify and correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks
Manu
On 4/25/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's required for corba ejb references.david jencksOn Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:> Hi,> I have a question regarding one of the objects present in> the current application local JNDI Context. What is the
> HandleDelegate entry for?>> Thanks> Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[David Jencks]

It's required for corba ejb references.

david jencks

On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Manu George wrote:


Hi,
I have a question regarding one of the objects present in  
the current application local JNDI Context. What is the  
HandleDelegate entry for?


Thanks
Manu

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Guillaume Nodet]

I would be glad to help writing / testing this feature.
Is the code available somewhere ?
I also just have one question: when I was looking at how to use Geronimo 
JNDI implementation, i faced the problem that to access one of the proxy 
in the JNDI tree, Geronimo requires the main interface name (which is 
usually given by deployment descriptors).  How did you work around that ?


Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Krishnakumar B wrote:


Hi,

In geronimo road map there was a requirement for implementing Global
JNDI for geronimo.

An approach to implementing the same is posted below. Kindly post your
valuable feedback.

* Write and Deploy a GBean For Global JNDI
* GBean on startup of server would introspect the server and build JNDI tree
  - jdbc
  - jms
  - ejb etc...
* JNDI tree is stored in Hashmap and we can use
ComponentContextBuilder to build this tree.
* We can use EnterpriseNamingContext to create a context.
* The Context is stored as a static variable in the Local Factory Class.
* During deployment a new entry is added to Context ( Hashmap.)
* During undeployment an entry is removed from Context ( Hashmap )
* We can reuse the existing the geronimo-naming package for directory
operations.

We have done some initial ground work ( Writing Gbean, Building JNDI
Tree ) and would be glad to know how such an implementation would fit
into geronimo server, limitations if any so that we know we are using
the right approach.

Regards
Krish


 

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Guillaume Nodet]

I would be glad to help writing / testing this feature.
Is the code available somewhere ?
I also just have one question: when I was looking at how to use Geronimo 
JNDI implementation, i faced the problem that to access one of the proxy 
in the JNDI tree, Geronimo requires the main interface name (which is 
usually given by deployment descriptors).  How did you work around that ?


Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Krishnakumar B wrote:


Hi,

In geronimo road map there was a requirement for implementing Global
JNDI for geronimo.

An approach to implementing the same is posted below. Kindly post your
valuable feedback.

* Write and Deploy a GBean For Global JNDI
* GBean on startup of server would introspect the server and build JNDI tree
  - jdbc
  - jms
  - ejb etc...
* JNDI tree is stored in Hashmap and we can use
ComponentContextBuilder to build this tree.
* We can use EnterpriseNamingContext to create a context.
* The Context is stored as a static variable in the Local Factory Class.
* During deployment a new entry is added to Context ( Hashmap.)
* During undeployment an entry is removed from Context ( Hashmap )
* We can reuse the existing the geronimo-naming package for directory
operations.

We have done some initial ground work ( Writing Gbean, Building JNDI
Tree ) and would be glad to know how such an implementation would fit
into geronimo server, limitations if any so that we know we are using
the right approach.

Regards
Krish


 

Re: Implementing Global JNDI

[Manu George]

Hi,
    I have a question regarding
one of the objects present in the current application local JNDI
Context. What is the HandleDelegate entry for? 

Thanks
Manu