I think some form of configuration management as discussed in at least one
other thread here is far more important, than modularization.
On Jun 15, 2011 6:11 PM, "Jevgeni Kabanov" <jevgeni_at_zeroturnaround.com>
wrote:
> Personally, I don't think that modularity will give any advantages to PaaS
or multi-tenancy. For PaaS using process-per-application model would make
the most sense, as that would provide proper isolation and for multi-tenancy
either separate JVM instance can be used to ensure isolation or a monolithic
approach to leave isolation requirements to the app developer.
>
> --
> Jevgeni Kabanov
> Founder & CTO of ZeroTurnaround
> http://twitter.com/ekabanov
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 15:34 , Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
>> It's scary to thing multi-tenancy without having modularization and wait
until SE 8 (Jigsaw). I really wonder how we will get trough this PasS/SaaS
adventure without modularity and just guessing what will happen (even if
Jigsaw is pretty much defined)
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 20:22, Adam Bien <abien_at_adam-bien.com (mailto:
abien_at_adam-bien.com)> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 02.06.2011, at 21:42, Jeff Genender wrote:
>> > > Im in agreement with a possible cloud profile, but I don't think
putting off a PaaS item until JavaEE 8 is a good idea.
>> >
>> > +1. We should at least prepare things and then wait for Jigsaw :-)
>> >
>> > > The rate which we get things out, there will be a next big thing.
Lots of folks are clamoring for PaaA standards and I think we are in a good
point to have it a part of this spec.
>> > >
>> > > Jeff
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 2, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Reza Rahman wrote:
>> > > > Antonio,
>> > > >
>> > > > Glad I'm not the only one seeing things from this perspective :-).
Quite honestly, I would not be at all opposed to delaying the entire
multi-tenancy idea to Java EE 8 or later and focus on the more
"bread-and-butter" things that need to be done :-).
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > > Reza
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 6/2/2011 1:47 PM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>> > > > > I'm following reza's comments on "not everybody needs cloud" and
I think we should have a Cloud profile instead of having it on the EE
platform ? Profiles can be subsets of EE as well as super sets. So why not
having a Cloud profile that includes most of EE and adds extra cloud
features ? This way we could also leave EE as it is (which means no Cloud,
Cluster, multi-tenant...). What do you think ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but latelly I've been earing a lot about
multi-tenant. It looks to me that the world is moving the other way now.
Application servers, databases... tend to be lighter and lighter in terms of
resources. So why bother having multi-tenancy ? Just instanciate several
servers or DBs and each instance only hosts one application. If I'm not
wrong (Nicolas Leroux can correct me) a Play! instance takes less than 100Kb
or RAM. With profiles, OSGi and modularity arriving, the platform is
shrinking and the app servers will shrink too, so why not goaling for
several app servers with one application instead of one app server with
several applications (same for DBs) ? That's why I think all these PAAS
concepts could go into a profile, not EE. Multi-tenancy is useful for some
people, but not everybody.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My 2 cents
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Antonio
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Reza Rahman <
reza_rahman_at_lycos.com (mailto:reza_rahman_at_lycos.com)> wrote:
>> > > > > > Bill,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > OK, all of what you said makes perfect sense - thanks for the
prompt response.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We'll put some more thoughts on some of this internally and
will try to share helpful details.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > > Reza
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 5/27/2011 6:20 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>> > > > > > > Hi Reza, welcome back! Linda is busy with JPA today so let me
try to
>> > > > > > > answer your questions...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Reza Rahman wrote on 05/26/11 02:36 PM:
>> > > > > > > > Linda,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Overall, this is a good start. At the same time though let
me state up-front two
>> > > > > > > > concerns:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Firstly, I hope all of this is implemented in away that
does not effect
>> > > > > > > > developers of simple applications that do not require cloud
support and never
>> > > > > > > > will.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Yes, that's our goal.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Secondly, I hope the cloud support does not take up so much
bandwidth for
>> > > > > > > > the Java EE 7 JSRs that more mundane but equally/more
important things get put
>> > > > > > > > in the back-burner.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Right now I'm more concerned about the reverse. We have a
pretty good handle
>> > > > > > > on what's required for all those more "mundane" things,
whereas "cloud support"
>> > > > > > > is still pretty amorphous. There's a tendency to work on the
problems we
>> > > > > > > understand instead of the hard problems we don't yet
understand. Clearly it's
>> > > > > > > the latter where we're looking for the most help from the
expert group.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Specific comments on the document:
>> > > > > > > > * I was left wondering about the specifics of how a tenant
ID get's established
>> > > > > > > > in the first place. While it might not be possible to spec
that out completely,
>> > > > > > > > it might be a good idea to have some guidelines so that
vendors don't diverge
>> > > > > > > > far beyond effective future collaboration.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Right now my feeling is that there's a number of different
ways this could
>> > > > > > > be done, and it won't matter to the application which one is
chosen, so there's
>> > > > > > > no need to overly constrain the solution. If you have a
specific scenario
>> > > > > > > that you're worried about, let us know.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > * I think it is best not to make cloud support the default
platform behavior but
>> > > > > > > > rather something that is enabled specifically. If this
really becomes cumbersome
>> > > > > > > > in the future because a majority of applications are on the
cloud, we can always
>> > > > > > > > make it the default later. Going the other way round if
cloud computing turns
>> > > > > > > > out to be just another over-hyped, vendor-driven bust with
limited practical
>> > > > > > > > applicability is going to be difficult I think.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Our current thinking is that an application is going to have
to explicitly
>> > > > > > > say "I'm designed for the cloud environment". When we
understand everything
>> > > > > > > that that implies, we might change our mind.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > * I prefer readable Java identifiers to abstruse UUIDs :-).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We want a tenant ID to be usable as a database primary key, a
file name, etc.,
>> > > > > > > so I think we only need to constrain the ID sufficiently to
make it usable
>> > > > > > > in this way.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > * I definitely think cloud support should be optional or at
least not added to
>> > > > > > > > the Web Profile.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Yes, we expect most of the cloud support to be optional for
the entire
>> > > > > > > platform. A Java EE 6 product that provides no cloud support
should be
>> > > > > > > able to be updated to support all the other things in Java EE
7 without
>> > > > > > > also having to explicitly support the cloud environment. It
may need to
>> > > > > > > understand things about the cloud environment so that it can
safely ignore
>> > > > > > > them, or provide nop or trivial implementations of them, but
it shouldn't
>> > > > > > > be required to actually run in a cloud environment.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > * It's difficult to make a call on ignoring the cloud
settings without looking
>> > > > > > > > at the overall cloud solution in detail. For now, I would
say implementations
>> > > > > > > > that do not support the cloud should simply ignore the
cloud settings. This
>> > > > > > > > would also make development on local machines that need not
support the cloud
>> > > > > > > > easier while the application can maybe later deployed to a
cloud enabled server
>> > > > > > > > for testing, production, etc.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Right, we need to get further into the details before we can
decide this.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > * Multi-tenancy comes in a very wide array of facets -- the
same application
>> > > > > > > > deployed to different machines with tenant-specific
configuration talking to a
>> > > > > > > > tenant-specific database, Multiple tenants using the same
application but going
>> > > > > > > > to tenant-specific databases, multiple tenants using the
same shared database,
>> > > > > > > > and so on. It would be important to get those details
hashed out centrally and
>> > > > > > > > propagate it to the different JSRs as opposed to different
JSRs coming up with
>> > > > > > > > their own solutions. In this case, if we don't do that
chaos might ensue :-).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Yes, that's the kind of thing we'll need to discuss further.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -----
>> > > > > > > No virus found in this message.
>> > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com (http://www.avg.com/)
>> > > > > > > Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3663 - Release
Date: 05/27/11
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Antonio Goncalves
>> > > > > Software architect and Java Champion
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Web site (http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/) | Twitter (
http://twitter.com/agoncal) | Blog (
http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves) | LinkedIn (
http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal) | Paris JUG (
http://www.parisjug.org/)
>> > > > > No virus found in this message.
>> > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com (http://www.avg.com/)
>> > > > > Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1511/3675 - Release Date:
06/02/11
>> > >
>> >
>> > Independent Consultant, Speaker, Java Champion
>> >
>> > Weblog: blog.adam-bien.com (http://blog.adam-bien.com)
>> > press: press.adam-bien.com (http://press.adam-bien.com)
>> > eMail: abien_at_adam-bien.com (mailto:abien_at_adam-bien.com)
>> > twitter: twitter.com/AdamBien (http://twitter.com/AdamBien)
>> > Mobile: 0049(0)170 280 3144
>> >
>> > Author of:
>> > "Real World Java EE Night Hacks", "Real World Java EE
Patterns--Rethinking Best Practices"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>
>> Web site (http://www.antoniogoncalves.org) | Twitter (
http://twitter.com/agoncal) | Blog (
http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves) | LinkedIn (
http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal) | Paris JUG (
http://www.parisjug.org)
>