You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@celix.apache.org by "J.W. Janssen (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2014/08/20 11:43:27 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (CELIX-140) [RSA] No distinction between
multiple endpoints
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-140?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14103690#comment-14103690 ]
J.W. Janssen commented on CELIX-140:
------------------------------------
I propose we use the service property {{remote.interface}} for this...
> [RSA] No distinction between multiple endpoints
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CELIX-140
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-140
> Project: Celix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Remote Service Admin
> Reporter: J.W. Janssen
> Priority: Blocker
>
> There is no service property that makes it possible to distinguish between multiple (remote) service endpoints. For service proxies, the service property {{proxy.interface}} is used for this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
Re: [jira] [Commented] (CELIX-140) [RSA] No distinction between multiple endpoints
Posted by Björn Petri <bj...@sundevil.de>.
Unfortunately I currently don't have access to the code as I am still on
vacation, but
If I remember correctly, the RSA SHM uses dedicated shared memory blocks
per exported service. Those shm blocks are identified by an ipc key
generated from a pathname containing the framework uuid.
I could take a closer look at this next week ;)
Kind regards,
Björn
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On August 20, 2014 1:59:09 PM Jan Willem Janssen
<ja...@luminis.eu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 20/08/14 13:31, Alexander Broekhuis wrote:
> > Jan Willem just created this issue. While adding the
> > remote.interface will work, I am not sure if this is enough.
> > So I'd like to add the endpoint UUID as well. The endpoint UUID is
> > created by the HTTP RSA and used in the URL for the service.
>
> Makes sense. The proxy.interface (and proposed endpoint.interface)
> properties could be used for debugging/logging purposes to see what
> interface a proxy/endpoint is for.
>
> > But if we add this, other RSA implementations need to follow this
> > pattern, else there would be different endpoint/proxy
> > implementations for different RSA's.
> > Is this something that makes sense? Or does anyone have any other
> > idea? Bjoern: does the SHM implementation already have something
> > like a UUID for endpoints?
>
> The current SHM implementation (in trunk) does not use the endpoint
> UUID yet, I've marked it with a TODO in a patch Alexander already
> applied, so it is easy to identify...
>
> May I propose that we use `endpoint.id` as service property for this?
> I'm already busy in this area, so I can create a patch for it as well...
>
> - -- Met vriendelijke groeten | Kind regards
>
> Jan Willem Janssen | Software Architect
> +31 631 765 814
>
> /My world is revolving around INAETICS and Amdatu/
>
> Luminis Technologies B.V.
> Churchillplein 1
> 7314 BZ Apeldoorn
> +31 88 586 46 00
>
> http://www.luminis-technologies.com
> http://www.luminis.eu
>
> KvK (CoC) 09 16 28 93
> BTW (VAT) NL8169.78.566.B.01
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT9I1qAAoJEKF/mP2eHDc43koP/A1l75TO0gdxb/L9xnhPozy3
> IuXq8WH8TnZ3gYdEEFPIsof4B6jKhNl+ie+rsNknro+wMO7YglMhYXlnb7zkKs6w
> YmLt1MKqrjUvc5lhWoIVu3S+7hwIEhRMlIqIeTflo5DFWY8dwvudqZ6oJO6hbjZT
> Cq3xbtmzRtjHpn/qefy7fywJabaHeFCC/3uL9fJJqsumzYRBwhtSBz9RyGIR9Oh0
> ogahCWz1J1fb/NJ+x9aqOwi0ml+KQIyinSZsAuwIpTDpweYvR5+FXNpDpTUF/pMB
> IomnWkVV7rDCKhz2ZJH8Gy1GP0cpvNkrZMpOcSOki8Zu+GFioN01lGltVJBowf8j
> kch/rxRGTopQTAiwdCZ+x9sbobwGA4DDVYdpMisHRVSjxOZ/bavVd8hp5D8Fic9M
> hSBy4DnozDbZAbxN4N79UBnT0M1OOKe3wgRctZ1WvTPZD7f3UuGyu76ZFI32Jc/R
> 4P9bgR3kVWM41a73ItUYNgtuvUnXyEex4bM2scI5PwHbExZe6wUvT++uAx/hO19D
> 4VMPFzgW29qjf+vHTElMQMqSyHpaT7bCjceZBm0AxujrlSx9NFupAKdcmfBhlOZK
> lJqTG8RANCwDAh/OwUO8ozFlMBsvHL5Dl8fNsZM6bczRruRPqONI8qk270sIqFlx
> 2/d+BK4wVbjFcPQGb7Hm
> =qt8y
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [jira] [Commented] (CELIX-140) [RSA] No distinction between multiple
endpoints
Posted by Jan Willem Janssen <ja...@luminis.eu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20/08/14 13:31, Alexander Broekhuis wrote:
> Jan Willem just created this issue. While adding the
> remote.interface will work, I am not sure if this is enough.
>
> So I'd like to add the endpoint UUID as well. The endpoint UUID is
> created by the HTTP RSA and used in the URL for the service.
Makes sense. The proxy.interface (and proposed endpoint.interface)
properties could be used for debugging/logging purposes to see what
interface a proxy/endpoint is for.
> But if we add this, other RSA implementations need to follow this
> pattern, else there would be different endpoint/proxy
> implementations for different RSA's.
>
> Is this something that makes sense? Or does anyone have any other
> idea? Bjoern: does the SHM implementation already have something
> like a UUID for endpoints?
The current SHM implementation (in trunk) does not use the endpoint
UUID yet, I've marked it with a TODO in a patch Alexander already
applied, so it is easy to identify...
May I propose that we use `endpoint.id` as service property for this?
I'm already busy in this area, so I can create a patch for it as well...
- --
Met vriendelijke groeten | Kind regards
Jan Willem Janssen | Software Architect
+31 631 765 814
/My world is revolving around INAETICS and Amdatu/
Luminis Technologies B.V.
Churchillplein 1
7314 BZ Apeldoorn
+31 88 586 46 00
http://www.luminis-technologies.com
http://www.luminis.eu
KvK (CoC) 09 16 28 93
BTW (VAT) NL8169.78.566.B.01
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org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=qt8y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [jira] [Commented] (CELIX-140) [RSA] No distinction between
multiple endpoints
Posted by Alexander Broekhuis <a....@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
Jan Willem just created this issue. While adding the remote.interface will
work, I am not sure if this is enough.
So I'd like to add the endpoint UUID as well. The endpoint UUID is created
by the HTTP RSA and used in the URL for the service.
But if we add this, other RSA implementations need to follow this pattern,
else there would be different endpoint/proxy implementations for different
RSA's.
Is this something that makes sense? Or does anyone have any other idea?
Bjoern: does the SHM implementation already have something like a UUID for
endpoints?
TiA
2014-08-20 11:43 GMT+02:00 J.W. Janssen (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org>:
>
> [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-140?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14103690#comment-14103690
> ]
>
> J.W. Janssen commented on CELIX-140:
> ------------------------------------
>
> I propose we use the service property {{remote.interface}} for this...
>
> > [RSA] No distinction between multiple endpoints
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Key: CELIX-140
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-140
> > Project: Celix
> > Issue Type: Bug
> > Components: Remote Service Admin
> > Reporter: J.W. Janssen
> > Priority: Blocker
> >
> > There is no service property that makes it possible to distinguish
> between multiple (remote) service endpoints. For service proxies, the
> service property {{proxy.interface}} is used for this.
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> (v6.2#6252)
>
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Alexander Broekhuis