[web clustering] (was Re: Volunteers - Topics AND Clustering)

[Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>]

FYI.

I'm on the third or fourth rethink of my web clustering stuff based on 
JavaGroups (a JMS port should not be hard). The second iteration is the 
solution Jetty currently uses.  I hope that this will  be a useful 
contribution.

If anyone wants to discuss it with me I am around....

Once I have satisfied myself that it will work, I shall put a mail out 
to geronimo dev explaining it :-)

There is bound to be plenty of common ground between this and other 
clustering efforts, so I shall keep myself in the loop.


Jules
 


James Strachan wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 06:32  pm, Harman, Jeff wrote:
>
>> I would like to work on Clustering and possibly JMS services that run 
>> in a cluster.
>
>
> Me too :)
>
>>
>> To wit:
>> The J2EE 1.4 spec does not specifically address clustering but, I 
>> believe that it is an essential service to have in order to gain 
>> acceptance as a J2EE container.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> We could follow JBoss's lead and use something like JavaGroups to 
>> help maintain state or we could layer it on top of other mechanisms 
>> like JMS and allow JMS to manage intra-process communications.  Of 
>> course this would require that the JMS mechanisms be distributed 
>> (unlike JBoss).
>>
>> IMHO, I believe that JMS should act as a client of the cluster and 
>> not the other way around.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> The only point of the above to note is that JavaGroups is LGPL and we 
> cannot import any LGPL code into any Apache code. Basically *GPL is 
> viral so we cannot import directly any *GPL code.
>
> However if we were to create a facade API (maybe with Bela and the 
> other JavaGroups folks) that abstracted JavaGroups and made the API 
> BSD licenced and JavaGroups implemented it then that would be fine. 
> i.e. that LGPL code imported our BSD code and not the other way around.
>
> This API would also allow us to have a JMS implementation as well.
>
> I've had some conversations with Bela about this and he seems OK with 
> helping to create this facade API. (There's even been talk of turning 
> this facade API into a JSR for Group Communication).
>
> Or another approach is we create the API ourselves as part of Geronimo 
> to abstract out what we actually need from a group communication 
> layer; then this could be implemented outside of Apache for JavaGroups 
> and inside Apache for JMS. (Unfortunately this would mean we could not 
> certify with JavaGroups, only with JMS).
>
> An even simpler solution would be to persuade Bela to licence 
> JavaGroups as BSD :)
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>


-- 
/*************************************
 * Jules Gosnell
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network (Europe)
 * http://www.coredevelopers.net
 *************************************/