jsr342-experts@javaee-spec.java.net

[jsr342-experts] Re: Support for the Platform as a Service model

From: Adam Bien <abien_at_adam-bien.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:33:32 +0200

" think in the interim, JSR-88 and JSR-77 are the way go "

Absolutely. They are already a part of J2EE and would require a face lift. I guess it is impossible to prune them, so introducing another one would just increase the Java EE 7 complexity.

--adam
On 17.06.2011, at 02:44, Reza Rahman wrote:

> Bill,
>
> For what it is worth, I agree with you that some of this looks like it is putting the horse before the cart :-). I'd like to see the existing developer APIs improve first and perhaps a basic outline of resource layer multi-tenancy before adding too many new APIs geared towards PaaS vendors. I think in the interim, JSR-88 and JSR-77 are the way go to even if they are less than ideal, maybe augmented by vendor-specific server APIs.
>
> Cheers,
> Reza
>
>
> On 6/16/2011 5:54 PM, 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.
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3707 - Release Date: 06/16/11
>>
>>
>