Jevgeni,
I agree. I think this is really the practical way most multi-tenancy
would be implemented.
Cheers,
Reza
On 6/15/2011 8:40 AM, Jevgeni Kabanov 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>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3705 - Release Date: 06/15/11
>