portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emad Benjamin <ebenj...@cisco.com>
Subject RE: Service and Component Frameworks
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:31:07 GMT
Please find comments below:

At 08:40 PM 12/2/2003 -0800, David Le Strat wrote:
>Scott,
>
>I agree with you on those. A couple more features
>could be:
>
>5. The service framework provides the ability to web
>service enable services.

Yes this is possible.  In fact you can write an adapter that does that not 
just for webservice but for other protocols.  Keep in mind that our 
approach is that majority of the time, ie the 80% case, services are local, 
and one should take advantage of that.  Rather than assuming the inverse, 
which is, services are always remote and hence suffer the obvious 
performance impediments.


>6. The service framework provides the ability to
>monitor the services performance.

Yes.  We do this at many levels.  We track the calling of service, timing, 
and other metrics that a user may decide to measure.  We use JMX to monitor 
these metrics, the user doesn't have to know about JMX, we take care of it 
for them.  The user simply provides the metric object (a Java bean) and we 
reflect into it and make it JMX-manageable.  But for the most part the 
out-of-box baseServiceMetric object is sufficient, it already has number of 
times a service is called, response times, average and totals, etc.  This 
is a very good starting point for other Metric objects that can extend from.

In conjunction (this is optional) with this we also log in the db each time 
a service is called along with the input parameters of the service.  A 
specialized ThreadedWorker/Queue model along with batch jdbc prepared 
statement is used here to enhance the insert time, as you can imagine it 
can bog down a service call if insert isn't highly performant.  Our tests 
show that we can get the insert down to 0.39msec, which is fast....and 
really if you play around with the tuning factors of the Worker/Queue based 
logger you could probably get it to be faster, for example, like increase 
number of workers, or increase the size of the batch of logs, etc.


>I am not sure what others think but I feel that some
>type of interceptor framework would be quite
>important.


>Regards,
>
>David.
>
>--- "Weaver, Scott" <Sweaver@rippe.com> wrote:
> > > What would be the key features that we would be
> > > looking for?
> >
> > This is me speaking, but I am sure others feel the
> > same:
> >
> > 1.  Transparent JMX management of deployed modules.
> > 2.  Hot deploy and hot configuration.  No more stop
> > container, change
> >     property(ies), restart container, wash, rinse,
> > repeat.  Gawd, that's a
> >     HUGE PITA!
> > 3.  The use of POJOs as components would be a nice
> > feature but isn't really
> >     a deal breaker.
> > 4.  Self-contained deployment either via jar or some
> > other container/archive
> >     mechanism.  Each module would have its own
> > config file included.  No
> >     more sifting through unwieldy properties files.
> > This also makes
> >     updating from the CVS easier you don't have to
> > worry about
> >     dif'ing out all the changes you made that will
> > more than likely conflict
> >     with the CVS.  You obviously have to perform
> > some dif'ing, but in
> >     smaller more manageable chunks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > *================================*
> > | Scott T Weaver                 |
> > | <weaver@apache.org>            |
> > | Apache Jetspeed Portal Project |
> > | Apache Pluto Portlet Container |
> > *================================*
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Le Strat [mailto:dlestrat@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:44 AM
> > > To: Jetspeed Developers List
> > > Subject: Re: Service and Component Frameworks
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > There is a lot of good info comparing the
> > differences
> > > between frameworks at:
> > >
> > >
> >
>http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Architecture_2fKernel
> > >
> > > Regarding Hivemind, Howard gave a presentation a
> > while
> > > back, some more info on Hivemind can be found at:
> > >
> >
>http://www.mail-archive.com/jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg08269.html
> > >
> > > It is a neat framework and hopefully the
> > intellectual
> > > property issue will be resolved soon.  I
> > especially
> > > like the clean interceptor model.  The
> > substitution
> > > model would also be quite handy to create clean
> > > separated modules and substitute common
> > configuration
> > > from a central configuration point. Finally
> > Hivedoc is
> > > quite nice in providing a clear picture of the
> > > dependencies between modules.
> > >
> > > Another interesting approach (which is the
> > approach
> > > taken by ExoPortal for instance) would be to
> > combine
> > > AOP with Pico container or Avalon (Merlin seems to
> > be
> > > the recommended service framework).
> > >
> > > Lots of choices out there.
> > >
> > > What would be the key features that we would be
> > > looking for?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > David.
> > >
> > > --- David Sean Taylor <david@bluesunrise.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Im starting a little informal thread discussing
> > > > Service and Component
> > > > Frameworks.
> > > >
> > > > Currently we are using Fulcrum in Jetspeed-2.
> > > > While I do like Fulcrum and it has been very
> > useful
> > > > for us, there are
> > > > now more advanced service frameworks available.
> > > > All services in J2 are implemented as Common
> > Portlet
> > > > Services. The goal
> > > > of CPS was to act as a layer so that we could
> > more
> > > > easily swap out
> > > > Fulcrum in the future. I think that time has
> > come
> > > > and we need to start
> > > > reviewing the other frameworks and make a
> > decision.
> > > >
> > > > The frameworks we have considering are:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Hivemind
> > > > 2. Pico Container
> > > > 3. Jetspeed Cornerstone (not to be confused with
> > > > Avalon Cornerstone)
> > > > 4. Avalon
> > > >
> > > > I really like what I've seen in Hivemind,
> > however
> > > > the current licensing
> > > > issues concern me.
> > > > I also think that Cornerstone, contributed by
> > the
> > > > Cisco team to
> > > > Jetspeed, is very powerful.
> > > > Are there other service frameworks we should be
> > > > considering?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> > > http://companion.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message