Adam,
Yes, pruning JSR 77 is especially difficult since I think the TCK uses
it. If it is really that critical, these JSRs could be resurrected in
parallel to Java EE 7 and/or Java EE 8. Personally, I don't see the
burning need since it is more efficient for a PaaS vendor to be
application server specific anyway and use application server specific
APIs. As to JClouds, I think that too can be entered as a JSR separate
from the development time-line for Java EE.
Cheers,
Reza
On 6/17/2011 4:33 AM, Adam Bien wrote:
> " 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
>>>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3708 - Release Date: 06/16/11
>
>
>