CloudFoundry (acquired by vmware) can be considered as partial Java EE based
PaaS.
We have our own solution "Pramati Cloud App Server", which runs on Amazon
EC2 and is a complete Java EE based PaaS.
-Deepak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristoffer Sjögren" <kristoffer.sjogren_at_ericsson.com>
One example of a Java EE-based PaaS is Red Hat's OpenShift Flex. Google App
Engine could be seen as another example (not fully Java EE).
Cheers,
-Kristoffer
-----Original Message-----
From: Jevgeni Kabanov [mailto:jevgeni_at_zeroturnaround.com]
Sent: den 17 juni 2011 08:32
To: jsr342-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
Subject: [jsr342-experts] Re: Support for the Platform as a Service model
I did say "ideally".
I guess I'll turn the question around then -- what are the good examples of
a Java EE-based PaaS today? I know of Amazon Beanstalk, are there any
others?
--
Jevgeni Kabanov
Founder & CTO of ZeroTurnaround
http://twitter.com/ekabanov
On Friday, June 17, 2011 at 0:54 , Bill Shannon wrote:
> Jevgeni Kabanov wrote on 06/15/2011 11:21 AM:
> > I'm still catching up with the reading and some research, but here
> > are in no particular order some things I'd ideally want to see from
> > this:
> > 1. App servers should abandon the notion that they are only managed
> > by their own consoles. Their should be a generic way to
> > start/stop/deploy/etc. I haven't looked into JSR-77 yet, maybe
> > that's the one. But I'd propose to standardize on the command line
> > instead of the Java API, which is hugely cumbersome in a heterogenous
> > environment the apps commonly live in.
>
> We tried to standardize some of this in JSR-77 and JSR-88. They have
> not been a success. While we'd like to do more here, it's a tremendous
> amount of effort, and not something we're planning to do for EE 7.
>
> > 2. Also, please let me pass parameters to the JVM, e.g. managing
> > Glassfish through scripts is impossible. Being able to tune the app
> > server and its JVM centrally is a must for the cloud.
>
> To make standardizing this really useful, we'd want standardized JVM
> parameters. There are none. A standardized way to pass non-standard
> parameters isn't as interesting, and encourages non-portable applications.
>
> Passing JVM parameters with an application when you deploy the
> application to the cloud assumes a certain deployment model (one
> application per JVM) that we're unlikely to require.
>
> If people think there's value in standardizing a way to pass
> non-standard JVM parameters, with no requirement that the application
> server do anything with them, I suppose we could consider that.
>
> Oh, and you *can* set JVM parameters for GlassFish using a script so
> I'm not sure what your issue is there.
>
> > 3. REST API layered over JMX API for deployment, configuration
> > management and app management. Can't stress that enough.
>
> JSR-77 is an EJB API for management. It gave us a standardized
> protocol for management that wasn't Java specific. Still, JMX proved more
> popular.
> There is still no cross-platform standardized protocol for management
> using JMX. We've been asking for years for a Web Services / SOAP
> mapping for JMX. Today, using a REST-based protocol might be a better
> choice.
>
> Again, this is a ton of work that we won't be able to do for EE 7.
>
> > 4. A jvm-instance-per-app model (better called process per app
> > model) for app servers as an alternative to the current classloader
> > per app model and way to manage those apps. At least as an option to be
> > standardized on down the line.
>
> I don't think we'll standardize this, but this is definitely one
> implementation strategy that we intend to allow.
>
> > 5. Session API/SPI (probably through the same JMX/REST combination)
> > that allows to migrate data without relying on the app server and
> > also keep session in the super-effective datagrids/caches.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your use case here.
>
> Our focus has been on APIs that applications need. Applications
> shouldn't be migrating data.
>
> In some cases we've provided SPIs that allow servers to be extended,
> or allow multiple implementations of a facility to be provided
> independently of a server vendor. An SPI to allow pluggability of
> session state storage and migration mechanisms might be interesting.
>
> > 6. Oh, and an API for provisioning app servers, though that's
> > probably too much to expect :)
> >
> > Generally I think the main thing PaaS support requires is to expose
> > a bunch of scripting APIs and make the app server consoles to be
> > consumers of the APIs the underlying server exposes. This will
> > create a great ecosystem to complement the existing tooling instead of
> > requiring app servers to catch up one by one.
>
> That's not our current plan.
>
> We're trying to enable application server vendors to provide a full
> cloud platform.
>
> We're not trying to turn application servers into a component that
> someone else would use to construct a full cloud platform.