You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ode.apache.org by Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> on 2007/08/31 18:10:46 UTC
BART branch merge
Hi all,
With 1.1 all spiced and cured, I'd like to merge BART branch into the trunk.
As a a reminder (its been a while) the BART branch is a refactor of the
engine that provides several benefits:
1. Simplified integration -- in particular it is no longer necessary to
start transactions in the IL in order to interface with ODE
2. Support for three different "invocation styles": Unreliable (the simple,
no tx no guarantees style), Reliable (transacted transport, useful for
WS-RM, JMS, and the like), and Transacted (supports atomic invocations).
3. Performance -- caching of instance state to eliminate unnecessary
database reads, reuse of message objects in p2p invocations, elimination of
unnecessary transactions, elimination of unnecessary context switches (i.e .
sequential instance work gets done by the same thread).
Any objects, comments, suggestions are appreciated.
-maciej
Re: BART branch merge
Posted by Tammo van Lessen <tv...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me
2007/8/31, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com>:
> If you have a custom IL, then there will be some small changes
> (for the better), otherwise there's no user-visible differences.
>
> -mbs
>
> On 8/31/07, Paul Brown <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to get it merged into trunk and baked. Sounds like good material
> > for a 1.2 release. Are there any incompatibilities introduced, i.e.,
> > will someone's 1.1 setup work (without modification) in 1.2?
> >
> > -- Paul
> >
> > On 8/31/07, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > With 1.1 all spiced and cured, I'd like to merge BART branch into the
> > trunk.
> > > As a a reminder (its been a while) the BART branch is a refactor of the
> > > engine that provides several benefits:
> > >
> > > 1. Simplified integration -- in particular it is no longer necessary to
> > > start transactions in the IL in order to interface with ODE
> > > 2. Support for three different "invocation styles": Unreliable (the
> > simple,
> > > no tx no guarantees style), Reliable (transacted transport, useful for
> > > WS-RM, JMS, and the like), and Transacted (supports atomic invocations).
> > > 3. Performance -- caching of instance state to eliminate unnecessary
> > > database reads, reuse of message objects in p2p invocations, elimination
> > of
> > > unnecessary transactions, elimination of unnecessary context switches (
> > i.e .
> > > sequential instance work gets done by the same thread).
> > >
> > > Any objects, comments, suggestions are appreciated.
> > >
> > > -maciej
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > paulrbrown@gmail.com
> > http://mult.ifario.us/
> >
>
--
Tammo van Lessen - tvanlessen@gmail.com - http://www.taval.de
Re: BART branch merge
Posted by Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com>.
If you have a custom IL, then there will be some small changes
(for the better), otherwise there's no user-visible differences.
-mbs
On 8/31/07, Paul Brown <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to get it merged into trunk and baked. Sounds like good material
> for a 1.2 release. Are there any incompatibilities introduced, i.e.,
> will someone's 1.1 setup work (without modification) in 1.2?
>
> -- Paul
>
> On 8/31/07, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > With 1.1 all spiced and cured, I'd like to merge BART branch into the
> trunk.
> > As a a reminder (its been a while) the BART branch is a refactor of the
> > engine that provides several benefits:
> >
> > 1. Simplified integration -- in particular it is no longer necessary to
> > start transactions in the IL in order to interface with ODE
> > 2. Support for three different "invocation styles": Unreliable (the
> simple,
> > no tx no guarantees style), Reliable (transacted transport, useful for
> > WS-RM, JMS, and the like), and Transacted (supports atomic invocations).
> > 3. Performance -- caching of instance state to eliminate unnecessary
> > database reads, reuse of message objects in p2p invocations, elimination
> of
> > unnecessary transactions, elimination of unnecessary context switches (
> i.e .
> > sequential instance work gets done by the same thread).
> >
> > Any objects, comments, suggestions are appreciated.
> >
> > -maciej
> >
>
>
> --
> paulrbrown@gmail.com
> http://mult.ifario.us/
>
Re: BART branch merge
Posted by Paul Brown <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1 to get it merged into trunk and baked. Sounds like good material
for a 1.2 release. Are there any incompatibilities introduced, i.e.,
will someone's 1.1 setup work (without modification) in 1.2?
-- Paul
On 8/31/07, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With 1.1 all spiced and cured, I'd like to merge BART branch into the trunk.
> As a a reminder (its been a while) the BART branch is a refactor of the
> engine that provides several benefits:
>
> 1. Simplified integration -- in particular it is no longer necessary to
> start transactions in the IL in order to interface with ODE
> 2. Support for three different "invocation styles": Unreliable (the simple,
> no tx no guarantees style), Reliable (transacted transport, useful for
> WS-RM, JMS, and the like), and Transacted (supports atomic invocations).
> 3. Performance -- caching of instance state to eliminate unnecessary
> database reads, reuse of message objects in p2p invocations, elimination of
> unnecessary transactions, elimination of unnecessary context switches (i.e .
> sequential instance work gets done by the same thread).
>
> Any objects, comments, suggestions are appreciated.
>
> -maciej
>
--
paulrbrown@gmail.com
http://mult.ifario.us/
Re: BART branch merge
Posted by Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com>.
Sanjiva,
Thanks for the pointer, I'll do that.
-mbs
On 8/31/07, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
>
> Hi Maciej,
>
> > JMS will work with Axis2 as it currently does (that is to say there is a
> > possibility of messages being lost). Reliable JMS will require a little
> bit
> > more cooperation from AXIS. The specific problem is in reliable, we'd
> need
> > axis to start a TX when a message is received from a partner (i.e. a
> request
> > on the server or a response from a server-initiated invoke). I am not
> sure
> > AXIS is capable of doing this.
>
> Axis can certainly start a transaction to pull the message from the queue
> and deliver it to Ode.
>
> Can you please bring this up on axis-dev? Asankha is the person who did
> the JMS work and I'm sure he'll reply with his thoughts on it and then we
> can work on getting this integrated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sanjiva.
> --
> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
> Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
> Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
>
Re: BART branch merge
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Hi Maciej,
> JMS will work with Axis2 as it currently does (that is to say there is a
> possibility of messages being lost). Reliable JMS will require a little bit
> more cooperation from AXIS. The specific problem is in reliable, we'd need
> axis to start a TX when a message is received from a partner (i.e. a request
> on the server or a response from a server-initiated invoke). I am not sure
> AXIS is capable of doing this.
Axis can certainly start a transaction to pull the message from the queue
and deliver it to Ode.
Can you please bring this up on axis-dev? Asankha is the person who did
the JMS work and I'm sure he'll reply with his thoughts on it and then we
can work on getting this integrated.
Thanks,
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
Re: BART branch merge
Posted by Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com>.
JMS will work with Axis2 as it currently does (that is to say there is a
possibility of messages being lost). Reliable JMS will require a little bit
more cooperation from AXIS. The specific problem is in reliable, we'd need
axis to start a TX when a message is received from a partner (i.e. a request
on the server or a response from a server-initiated invoke). I am not sure
AXIS is capable of doing this.
As for issues with BART, I'm sure there are some, but I am not aware of
them.
-mbs
On 8/31/07, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> +1. Let's take the trunk (essentially 1.1) and send it into a
> maintenance
> branch (based on feedback, we might want to do a 1.1.1)
>
> What are the current options for reliable and transacted invocations with
> the two current ILs? For example, does JMS work with Axis2/JBI? How
> about
> transacted?
>
> Are there any issues with the BART branch we should be aware of?
>
> alex
>
> On 8/31/07, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > With 1.1 all spiced and cured, I'd like to merge BART branch into the
> > trunk.
> > As a a reminder (its been a while) the BART branch is a refactor of the
> > engine that provides several benefits:
> >
> > 1. Simplified integration -- in particular it is no longer necessary to
> > start transactions in the IL in order to interface with ODE
> > 2. Support for three different "invocation styles": Unreliable (the
> > simple,
> > no tx no guarantees style), Reliable (transacted transport, useful for
> > WS-RM, JMS, and the like), and Transacted (supports atomic invocations).
> > 3. Performance -- caching of instance state to eliminate unnecessary
> > database reads, reuse of message objects in p2p invocations, elimination
> > of
> > unnecessary transactions, elimination of unnecessary context switches (
> i.e.
> > sequential instance work gets done by the same thread).
> >
> > Any objects, comments, suggestions are appreciated.
> >
> > -maciej
> >
>
Re: BART branch merge
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
+1. Let's take the trunk (essentially 1.1) and send it into a maintenance
branch (based on feedback, we might want to do a 1.1.1)
What are the current options for reliable and transacted invocations with
the two current ILs? For example, does JMS work with Axis2/JBI? How about
transacted?
Are there any issues with the BART branch we should be aware of?
alex
On 8/31/07, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> With 1.1 all spiced and cured, I'd like to merge BART branch into the
> trunk.
> As a a reminder (its been a while) the BART branch is a refactor of the
> engine that provides several benefits:
>
> 1. Simplified integration -- in particular it is no longer necessary to
> start transactions in the IL in order to interface with ODE
> 2. Support for three different "invocation styles": Unreliable (the
> simple,
> no tx no guarantees style), Reliable (transacted transport, useful for
> WS-RM, JMS, and the like), and Transacted (supports atomic invocations).
> 3. Performance -- caching of instance state to eliminate unnecessary
> database reads, reuse of message objects in p2p invocations, elimination
> of
> unnecessary transactions, elimination of unnecessary context switches (i.e.
> sequential instance work gets done by the same thread).
>
> Any objects, comments, suggestions are appreciated.
>
> -maciej
>