You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org by "S.Uthaiyashankar (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/04/17 07:14:14 UTC
[jira] Created: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Having a unified configuration system
-------------------------------------
Key: STONEHENGE-21
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
Project: Stonehenge
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
Fix For: M2
Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
RE: [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified
configuration system
Posted by "Drew Baird (Volt)" <a-...@microsoft.com>.
I will put this comment in Jira where it belongs..
No need to reply to this email
drew
________________________________________
From: Drew Baird (Volt)
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:16 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system
I mean run four scenarios simultaneously having different configurations and as many machines as it takes but from one database.
________________________________________
From: S.Uthaiyashankar (JIRA) [jira@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:27 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707210#action_12707210 ]
S.Uthaiyashankar commented on STONEHENGE-21:
--------------------------------------------
Hi Drew,
What do you mean by one configuration at a time? Do you want to say DOTNET_CLIENT connects to PHP_BS as well as DOTNET_CLIENT connects to DOTNET_BS? Obviously it is not possible. Other than that, you can have multiple configurations at the same time. e.g: DOTNET_CLIENT connects to PHP_BS and PHP_CLIENT connects to DOTNET_BS, etc.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
RE: [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified
configuration system
Posted by "Drew Baird (Volt)" <a-...@microsoft.com>.
I mean run four scenarios simultaneously having different configurations and as many machines as it takes but from one database.
________________________________________
From: S.Uthaiyashankar (JIRA) [jira@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:27 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707210#action_12707210 ]
S.Uthaiyashankar commented on STONEHENGE-21:
--------------------------------------------
Hi Drew,
What do you mean by one configuration at a time? Do you want to say DOTNET_CLIENT connects to PHP_BS as well as DOTNET_CLIENT connects to DOTNET_BS? Obviously it is not possible. Other than that, you can have multiple configurations at the same time. e.g: DOTNET_CLIENT connects to PHP_BS and PHP_CLIENT connects to DOTNET_BS, etc.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
RE: WIKI Discussion Pages
Posted by Kent Brown <Ke...@microsoft.com>.
Dan,
I think where people have questions is when specifying functionality for a fairly complex new feature it's easier to make revisions to a document than to have long complex emails going back and forth. I think the wiki was seen as a possible way to facilitate the discussion in a very open, but more convenient way. Have you seen anything work well in other projects besides just raw email? Is it ok to use Word documents? Should they be attached to Jira tickets and when someone makes comments the email goes out to the list?
Kent Brown
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 6:07 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Ben Dewey
Subject: Re: WIKI Discussion Pages
On Mon June 15 2009 4:37:05 pm Ben Dewey wrote:
> All,
>
> I can add Avantika's document[1] to the WIKI, but I'm wondering if there is
> a structure we should follow?
You cannot do that yet. Avantika has not submitted an ICLA and the document
on the JIRA does not have the "grant to apache" thing checked. Thus,
legally, we cannot accept it for anything official.
> Currently there aren't any "discussion" style pages. Can a mentor please
> advise on best practices for this?
Discussions are best done on this list if at all possible.
Dan
>
>
> If there aren't any recommendations, I was thinking we could create a
> discussion index page with a child page for Avantika's document.
>
> - Developer Discussions
> -- Config Service Specs
>
>
> -Ben
>
> PS. (Scott/Abu) briefly discussed on an email[2] setting up a Wiki page
> for discussions. Does anyone know what the plan is/was for that?
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> [2]:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stonehenge-dev/200905.mb
>ox/%3cEC49DD6F144D85418738414174E6706406EF2084@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.m
>icrosoft.com%3e
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: WIKI Discussion Pages
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Mon June 15 2009 4:37:05 pm Ben Dewey wrote:
> All,
>
> I can add Avantika's document[1] to the WIKI, but I'm wondering if there is
> a structure we should follow?
You cannot do that yet. Avantika has not submitted an ICLA and the document
on the JIRA does not have the "grant to apache" thing checked. Thus,
legally, we cannot accept it for anything official.
> Currently there aren't any "discussion" style pages. Can a mentor please
> advise on best practices for this?
Discussions are best done on this list if at all possible.
Dan
>
>
> If there aren't any recommendations, I was thinking we could create a
> discussion index page with a child page for Avantika's document.
>
> - Developer Discussions
> -- Config Service Specs
>
>
> -Ben
>
> PS. (Scott/Abu) briefly discussed on an email[2] setting up a Wiki page
> for discussions. Does anyone know what the plan is/was for that?
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> [2]:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stonehenge-dev/200905.mb
>ox/%3cEC49DD6F144D85418738414174E6706406EF2084@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.m
>icrosoft.com%3e
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
RE: WIKI Discussion Pages
Posted by Scott Golightly <sc...@hotmail.com>.
I was thinking of doing something along the lines of what you suggest with a discussion index page for active discussions and child pages. I was also going to suggest we have a discussion archive page where we would move the discussion after we have decided that it is not a good idea or after the feature has been implemented and the documentation updated with the change. I don't know if that is the "correct" structure but it makes sense to me.
Scott Golightly
> From: Ben.Dewey@26ny.com
> To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:37:05 -0400
> Subject: WIKI Discussion Pages
>
> All,
>
> I can add Avantika's document[1] to the WIKI, but I'm wondering if there is a structure we should follow?
>
> Currently there aren't any "discussion" style pages. Can a mentor please advise on best practices for this?
>
>
> If there aren't any recommendations, I was thinking we could create a discussion index page with a child page for Avantika's document.
>
> - Developer Discussions
> -- Config Service Specs
>
>
> -Ben
>
> PS. (Scott/Abu) briefly discussed on an email[2] setting up a Wiki page for discussions. Does anyone know what the plan is/was for that?
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> [2]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stonehenge-dev/200905.mbox/%3cEC49DD6F144D85418738414174E6706406EF2084@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com%3e
WIKI Discussion Pages
Posted by Ben Dewey <Be...@26ny.com>.
All,
I can add Avantika's document[1] to the WIKI, but I'm wondering if there is a structure we should follow?
Currently there aren't any "discussion" style pages. Can a mentor please advise on best practices for this?
If there aren't any recommendations, I was thinking we could create a discussion index page with a child page for Avantika's document.
- Developer Discussions
-- Config Service Specs
-Ben
PS. (Scott/Abu) briefly discussed on an email[2] setting up a Wiki page for discussions. Does anyone know what the plan is/was for that?
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
[2]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stonehenge-dev/200905.mbox/%3cEC49DD6F144D85418738414174E6706406EF2084@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com%3e
RE: [jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by Avantika Agrawal <t-...@microsoft.com>.
Ben,
Thanks for helping me upload this. I just signed the ICLA and requested access for editing WIKI pages from Daniel Culp.
Best,
Avantika
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Dewey [mailto:Ben.Dewey@26ny.com]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:25 PM
To: 'stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system
Avantika,
You can get access to the WIKI without being a committer, but signing the ICLA and emailing Daniel Kulp.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STONEHENGE/Apache+Stonehenge+First+Steps
You'll need access to make edits later on.
-Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Avantika Agrawal (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:22 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Avantika Agrawal updated STONEHENGE-21:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
Here's a specification for the configuration service, as I envisioned it. It provides more details on phase I and phase II, as I mentioned in my last email.
Can somebody who has contributor status on the wiki upload this as a wiki page so that we can all edit it?
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch, StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
RE: [jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by Ben Dewey <Be...@26ny.com>.
Avantika,
You can get access to the WIKI without being a committer, but signing the ICLA and emailing Daniel Kulp.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STONEHENGE/Apache+Stonehenge+First+Steps
You'll need access to make edits later on.
-Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Avantika Agrawal (JIRA) [mailto:jira@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:22 PM
To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Avantika Agrawal updated STONEHENGE-21:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
Here's a specification for the configuration service, as I envisioned it. It provides more details on phase I and phase II, as I mentioned in my last email.
Can somebody who has contributor status on the wiki upload this as a wiki page so that we can all edit it?
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch, StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707347#action_12707347 ]
Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-------------------------------------
Just to be clear. what should the client key be?
1. the client endpoint address - http://st-dev01/trade, or http://st-dev01:8080/trade
2. just the computer name - st-dev01
3. a unique key (unique name, guid, id)
I'm thinking number #1,
But on that note, why would we add a column to CleintToBs? wouldn't the endpoint negate the PHP_CLIENT value that's presently there.
So, instead of
client-id | client | bs
http://st-dev01:8080/traderclient | PHP_CLIENT | PHP_BS
http://st-dev01/trade | DOTNET_CLIENT | DOTNET_BS
We could just have, the above is alittle redundant
http://st-dev01:8080/traderclient | PHP_BS
http://st-dev01/trade | DOTNET_BS
-------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, that takes away your normalization, So my recommendation is:
Add the CLIENT entries to the SERVICES table, So in the SERVICES table you have DOTNET_CLIENT = http://dev/trade, or DOTNET_CLIENT_1 = http://dev01/trade, DOTNET_CLIENT_2 = http://dev02/trade
Then your ClientToBs tables can just have rows added for multiple clients.
so your ClientToBs table would look like this
CLIENT | BS
---------------------
DOTNET_CLIENT_1 | PHP_BS
DOTNET_CLIENT_2 | DOTNET_BS
etc.
This would take coding changes on both the dotnet side and php side, as you would have to lookup your own endpoint, before finding your BS.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Resolved: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Ben Dewey resolved STONEHENGE-21.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
This issue was fixed in the 1.1 tag. All new implementation contain a consistent Config Service and Config tab on the UI
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch, StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12708086#action_12708086 ]
Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-------------------------------------
This technique would affect the following methods of PHP config_svc_processor.php
isBusinessServiceDefined()
isOrderProcessorServiceDefined()
isOrderProcessorServiceSecDefined()
These methods strictly expect 'PHP_CLIENT" etc. and would have to be adapted to understand "PHP_1_CLIENT", PHP_2_CLIENT" or something similar.
perhaps we can change this to use Regex or something. The should potentially be a seperate ticket.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified
configuration system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12708086#action_12708086 ]
Ben Dewey edited comment on STONEHENGE-21 at 5/11/09 8:50 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
This technique would affect the following methods of PHP config_svc_processor.php
isBusinessServiceDefined()
isOrderProcessorServiceDefined()
isOrderProcessorServiceSecDefined()
These methods strictly expect 'PHP_CLIENT" etc. and would have to be adapted to understand "PHP_1_CLIENT", PHP_2_CLIENT" or something similar.
perhaps we can change this to use Regex or something. This should potentially be a seperate ticket.
was (Author: bdewey01):
This technique would affect the following methods of PHP config_svc_processor.php
isBusinessServiceDefined()
isOrderProcessorServiceDefined()
isOrderProcessorServiceSecDefined()
These methods strictly expect 'PHP_CLIENT" etc. and would have to be adapted to understand "PHP_1_CLIENT", PHP_2_CLIENT" or something similar.
perhaps we can change this to use Regex or something. The should potentially be a seperate ticket.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "S.Uthaiyashankar (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707225#action_12707225 ]
S.Uthaiyashankar commented on STONEHENGE-21:
--------------------------------------------
I agree, when you have 4 DOTNET clients, you can't make them to talk to different BS.
So, when you say ClientName and ServerName, is it an identifier given to a client as part of configuration? (e.g. dotnet_client_1, dotnet_client_2, dotnet_bs_5, etc.?) Or is it actual end point address?
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Andrew (Drew) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707365#action_12707365 ]
Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-----------------------------------------
I Concur with your reccomendation.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707039#action_12707039 ]
Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-------------------------------------
What do people envision for the first step for this ticket?
I'm thinking that we should create a .net configuration service like php. then we could add the .NET enpoints/config to the DB tables that are already in place.
Is this the same thought you were thinking Shankar? or did you have something else in mind for unifying things.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Andrew (Drew) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707245#action_12707245 ]
Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-----------------------------------------
I think all we need for the CLEINTTOBS table is to have add a key column "client" and use the exisitng column (in that row) for the actual endpoint.. So each row int the table will specify both ends of the connection. A client will look in the table for "its own" name (key) and use the endpoint in that row .
Similar proceedure for BSTOOPS
Then we can have N clients and N services working at the same time with very little effort.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Avantika Agrawal (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12716079#action_12716079 ]
Avantika Agrawal commented on STONEHENGE-21:
--------------------------------------------
I was brainstorming some ideas for this configuration system and I think we can break down the issue of the database configuration system into a bunch of tickets.
Firstly, I think we should work on implementing Ben's ConfigService contract - this should get the config service running when we start up StockTrader.
The second step I guess would then be to hook up the .NET StockTrader configuration to use this ConfigService.
Finally, I think the last step could be to resolve the issue of mutiple clients. For this we'd need to have the client look itself up in the database and retrieve its endpoint (along the lines of Ben's new ClientToBS structure.
Let me know what you guys think of this.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Avantika Agrawal (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Avantika Agrawal updated STONEHENGE-21:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
I have reuploaded the specification, with the 'Grant to Apache' option checked.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch, StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12710995#action_12710995 ]
Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-------------------------------------
Thanks Shankar,
Any thoughts on whether the .NET Config Service should implement the exact same contract?
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12716090#action_12716090 ]
Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-------------------------------------
Avantika,
I like the idea of adding a few preliminary tickets. Do any committers agree?
As discussed in the Email thread, this ticket should probably remain for setting up the Config Tabs in the PHP/DOTNET clients.
In addition to yours, here is a few potential ticket topics that I can think of off the top of my head.
1. Remove the InProcess Mode (STONEHENGE-57)
2. Create a .NET Config Service (I'll comment on this ticket when it's created, but I think this should be hosted as a .svc attached to the .Net Client)
3. Setup .NET Client/BS/OPS to get Active BS/OPS from config service
4. Setup .NET Client/BS/OPS to use activeDB from config service
5. Setup .NET/PHP Client/BS/OPS to send 'self' endpoint when requesting destination endpoint
6. This ticket (create a UI for add/edit/delete/select active BS/OPS/DB)
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Andrew (Drew) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707056#action_12707056 ]
Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-----------------------------------------
I like that idea (dotnet config service to use existing tables)
.
HOWEVER, we need to deal with the issue of having multiple machines and muliple scenarios
I believe the BSTOOPS and the CLIENTTOBS tables only handle one scenario at a time. We need to add ClientName and ServerName columns to the tables and I believe that will handle the issue. The config service would look up the config to be used 'my' machine.
I am not a db guy so there may be a better way to handle that.
Drew
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "S.Uthaiyashankar (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707210#action_12707210 ]
S.Uthaiyashankar commented on STONEHENGE-21:
--------------------------------------------
Hi Drew,
What do you mean by one configuration at a time? Do you want to say DOTNET_CLIENT connects to PHP_BS as well as DOTNET_CLIENT connects to DOTNET_BS? Obviously it is not possible. Other than that, you can have multiple configurations at the same time. e.g: DOTNET_CLIENT connects to PHP_BS and PHP_CLIENT connects to DOTNET_BS, etc.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Andrew (Drew) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707223#action_12707223 ]
Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-----------------------------------------
Example:
Imagine I have Four DOTNET clients. One talks to DOTNET_BS another to PHP_BS and a third to WSAS_BS and the fourth to a JAVA_BS.
What would the CLIENTTOBS table look like?
Drew
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Avantika Agrawal (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Avantika Agrawal updated STONEHENGE-21:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: (was: StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc)
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Ben Dewey updated STONEHENGE-21:
--------------------------------
Attachment: ConfigContract.patch
Attached is a potential config contract for the .NET WCF Service
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Andrew (Drew) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707221#action_12707221 ]
Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-----------------------------------------
Hi Shankar,
I mean run four scenarios simultaneously having different configurations and as many machines as it takes - but from one database.
I do not see how the CLIENTTOBS OR BSTOOPS can handle more than one row without adding a column for the ClientName and ServerName.
Like I said I am not a DB guy so please tell me how to you set those tables (CLIENTTOBS OR BSTOOPS )where you have two clients at the same time pointing to different BS and Two BS talking to different OPS?
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Updated: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Avantika Agrawal (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Avantika Agrawal updated STONEHENGE-21:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
Here's a specification for the configuration service, as I envisioned it. It provides more details on phase I and phase II, as I mentioned in my last email.
Can somebody who has contributor status on the wiki upload this as a wiki page so that we can all edit it?
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch, StockTrader Configuration Specification_v3.doc
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12710835#action_12710835 ]
Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-------------------------------------
I was in the process of mocking a potential .NET Config Service Contract based on PHP and I noticed that the PHP config service has the following actions.
- OPSConfigRequest
- ActiveDB
- GetActiveDB
- BSConfigRequest
- ClientToBS
- ServiceLocation
- GetClientToBSConnections
- BSToOPS
- DBConfig
- GetServiceLocations
- GetBSToOPSConnections
- ClientConfigRequest
- GetDBConfigs
When I was navigating the site with TCPMon enabled the only actions that got invoked were
- ClientConfigRequest
- BSConfigRequest
Are any other actions actually being used in production? Should the .NET Client implement all these actions, or just the active ones?
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "S.Uthaiyashankar (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12710994#action_12710994 ]
S.Uthaiyashankar commented on STONEHENGE-21:
--------------------------------------------
- OPSConfigRequest
- ActiveDB
- GetActiveDB
- DBConfig
These will make sense when we have more than one database and change the database at runtime.
- ClientToBS
- ServiceLocation
- GetClientToBSConnections
- BSToOPS
- GetServiceLocations
- GetBSToOPSConnections
- GetDBConfigs
These operations are used to configure/populate data in the database by a FE.
None of the above operations are used at the moment, but they might be needed when we need a configuration FE.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "S.Uthaiyashankar (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12710996#action_12710996 ]
S.Uthaiyashankar commented on STONEHENGE-21:
--------------------------------------------
Not for the moment, I guess.. When we design a FE for configuring, then we can decide what operations we are going to use. We might have to change the above operations at that point, so I don't see any point of implementing it now.
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration
system
Posted by "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12716085#action_12716085 ]
Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-21:
-------------------------------------
Readers of this ticket may find this thread informative
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stonehenge-dev/200905.mbox/%3c0797E98FF7451041939CF35232C75B065604FC0B80@26NY-ES3.26ny.local%3e
> Having a unified configuration system
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: STONEHENGE-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21
> Project: Stonehenge
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: S.Uthaiyashankar
> Fix For: M2
>
> Attachments: ConfigContract.patch
>
>
> Currently, .NET Services and PHP/WSAS Services are configured differently. .NET uses file based configuration and PHP/WSAS uses database configurations. We have to find a common mechanism to store the configurations. One option is to have a configuration service and then all the other services request endpoint details from configuration service.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.