You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Harman, Jeff" <JH...@WebsterBank.com> on 2003/08/12 19:32:10 UTC
RE: Volunteers - Topics AND Clustering
I would like to work on Clustering and possibly JMS services that run in a cluster.
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.
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.
Thanks,
-Jeff Harman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luis Avila [mailto:lavila@axer.cl]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:12 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Volunteers - Topics
>
>
> Here are a brief list of people involved in topics about the
> project. It's only with a very fast revision of the mails so
> surely is incomplete, but is a starting point.
>
>
> I propose to make one page in the wiki site with this
> information, so we can choose some team or to start one in
> some topic not covered.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Persistence:
>
> dain
> Jeremy Boynes
> Michael Turilin
>
> JNDI
>
> Richard Monson-Haefel
> Henri Yandell
> Stefano Passiglia
> Alex Blewitt
>
> WS
>
> Richard Monson-Haefel
> Alberto Rodriguez Galdo
>
> Mail
>
> Alex Blewitt
>
> User Friendliness
>
> Erin Mulder
> Chris Opacki
>
> Clustering
>
> Michael Remijan
>
> Security
>
> Prashant Bhatt
>
> Tests
>
>
> --
> Luis Avila
> __________________________
> Technology Project Manager
> Axer Systems S.A.
> Román Díaz 205 Of. 503
> Fono: 56-2-235 2747
> http://www.axer.cl
>
>
[web clustering] (was Re: Volunteers - Topics AND Clustering)
Posted by 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
*************************************/
[clustering] (was Re: Volunteers - Topics AND Clustering)
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
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/