Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
> Salut,
>
> Jerome Dochez wrote:
>
>> this may just be an wild idea.
>>
>> could we use this mechanism to retrofit the QuickStartup ?
>
>
> Yes, if we listen on a single port, then when a request comes, we can
> derive the transport/protocol, and then start the appropriate
> endpoints (Container) based on the protocol and then deliver the request.
That answers the first part of my requirement. What changes have to be
done in the container for this to happen?
>
> That would
>
>> avoid QuickStartup registering the socket listener...
>> In particular would that allow us to deactivate QuickStartup once the
>> appserver is fully started ?
>
>
> Yes, this is something we can do. The major difference with QS is the
> requests must be received on a single port.
If the container can be started lazily using the framwork, wont the same
logic
work, even if multiple ports are used?
May be I am just missing the point. Can you explain this a little bit more?
- Binod.
>
> Thanks
>
> -- Jeanfrancois
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Jerome
>>
>> Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've recently committed support in Grizzly[1] a port unification
>>> mechanism that allow the discovery of the TCP request protocol and
>>> transport. When enabled, a single port can listen to any TCP
>>> requests (clean text or TLS/SSL) and dispatch the request to the
>>> targeted Container (HTTP, SOA, etc.). Technically, it means we can
>>> open a single TCP port and support multiple protocols (http, https,
>>> IIOP, SOAP/TCP, etc.)
>>>
>>> By default, I've added support for HTTP protocol (clean text and
>>> SSL), which means we can support the following use case. If the
>>> wrong transport is used, Grizzly will automatically redirect to the
>>> proper transport|protocol:
>>>
>>> admin-listener listening on port 4848 and secure-enabled = false
>>>
>>> Client request Server port
>>>
>>> http://...:4848 --> http://....:4848
>>> https://...:4848 --> http://....:4848
>>>
>>> admin-listener listening on port 4848 and secure-enabled = true
>>>
>>> http://...:4848 --> https://....:4848
>>> https://...:4848 --> https://....:4848
>>>
>>> The HTTP protocol handler can also support the following use case
>>> where the wrong port is invoked:
>>>
>>> admin-listener listening on port 4848 and secure-enabled = false
>>>
>>> https://...:4849 --> http://....:4848
>>> http://...:4849 --> http://....:4848
>>>
>>> admin-listener listening on port 4848 and secure-enabled = true
>>>
>>> https://...:4849 --> https://....:4848
>>> http://...:4849 --> https://....:4848
>>>
>>> Another protocol we currently have an implementation is the SOAP/TCP
>>> (for WSIT support).
>>>
>>> Now for 9.1, I would like to enable the mechanism for port 4848 (to
>>> fix [2]). Since we also need to support SOAP/TCP from WSIT, should
>>> we enable it as well for all http port?
>>>
>>> We need to keep the functionality configurable because it introduce
>>> a tiny performance regression (needs to discover the
>>> protocol|transport). Also no domain.xml changes are required, as the
>>> mechanism is supported via a http-listener property.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -- Jeanfrancois
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/source/browse/glassfish/appserv-http-engine/src/java/com/sun/enterprise/web/portunif/
>>>
>>> [2] https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=741
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>