On Aug 24, 2007, at 3:03 AM, Nodet Guillaume wrote:
So if i understand you correctly, you are mostly concerned of
enhancing
the JMS flow in the following areas:
* avoid ping/pong and lower bandwidth requirement
(avoid sending the whole exchange and only send the actual data)
* enhance security (authentication, encryption ?)
* enhance the endoint registry wrt to services or instances going
up and down
Did I catch you correcty ?
For the bandwidh requirement, I'm sure we can do that and
reconstruct a fake
exchange on the other side. We would loose informations wrt to the
input message
but I don't think this would be too much a problem. For the ping/
pong stuff, I'm sure
we can find a way to optimize it somehow. We may have troubles
handling the
InOptionalOut pattern though, as you don't really know if you will
receive an Out
message or nothing, but for the other simple patterns (InOnly and
InOut) it should
be quite easy to send back the exchange with a DONE status just
after having send
the jms message containing the In or Out.
On the security subject, I know there is lots to do, but this is an
area i'm not so familiar
with. My biggest concern is that we security can be applied at the
connection level
or at the message level. NMR-NMR security for the JMS flow could
be delegated
to ActiveMQ i guess (using AMQ security features).
You may want to look into the CORBA csiv2 framework for some ideas on
how to simultaneously deal with authentication of both the client/
server and user. I'm not suggesting that you use CORBA as a
transport but the concepts might be useful.
thanks
david jencks
On the registry side, I think one of the main problem is that there
is no way to tell the
difference between an endpoint that goes down because the server is
no more
accessibe (it will be up again at a later time) or because the
endpoint has been
undeployed. Imho, this is a key requirement to be able to make
routing decisions.
I don't know yet how to handle this problem: if a server has been
shutdown, it may
never go up again... So i'm still not sure how to handle the
problem :-(
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Kit Plummer wrote:
Sure Guillaume.
Maybe the best thing to do is explain the concept...and what we've
done to
meet our requirements.
It is actually quite simple. We needed to be able to connect two
computers
together via TCP/IP, and have a publisher on one system, the
consumer on the
other. Granted we've got lot's of both on each - but, the premise
is that
link between is transparent.
Currently, we are using a feature of ActiveMQ called "Network of
Brokers"
(NoB) to create a mapping of destinations/endpoints.
Where it gets really complicated is when we only want to allow a
specific
MEPs to cross the NoB connection. In this example, bandwidth is
not a
commodity and must be tightly constrained. We were tolerant of
all the SEDA
flow handshaking, but I believe it would be nice if InOnly MEPS
really were
just a single transmission (turning off levels of reliability/
durability).
Also, in our environment multicast isn't possible, and the
networks are
fairly ad-hoc...meaning not stable. Plus, we need to know about
the state
of the link.
Service registration happens also in different configurations.
For example,
one topology we support is a hierarchical flow (master-slaves).
Imagine a
simple sensor net. There would be a single point at the top,
where are data
were to be aggregated. So, in this example the NoBs need to support
"followers" only communicating with their "leader"...and the
"leader" only
communicating with its "leader". But, there might also be a need
to have
"shared" data that is available on all platforms in network
(health, state,
etc.). Ding lifecycle.
I could keep going...but, am curious if anyone else looks at it
this way.
Obviously, the notion of simple performance scalability is one way
to look
at. There is a lot of capability in the NoB, but I think it falls
a bit
short. There are a few features that we'd like to see, that would
help us
federate better. BC/SE/SA-level authentication to the bus, as
well as
platform-to-platform, or NMR-to-NMR authentication would be very
helpful.
We've been looking at grid/cluster-like capabilities too - for
example, if
one platform is maxed out from a processing perspective, sending
the SA and
the message/task to another platform in network automatically.
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
On 8/23/07, Nodet Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Kit,
I'm quite sure you would have a very valuable input there, given
your
experience
on ServiceMix. So I'm starting this new thread. Would you mind
throwing a few
ideas there ?
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:39 AM, Kit Plummer wrote:
On 8/22/07, Terry Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting.
We need to have a very serious chat about application
lifecycles and
governance...
Terry
And Federating...distribution of the NMR across n-platforms!
--
Kit Plummer
Nobody-in-Charge @ Black:Hole:Logic
http://www.blackholelogic.com
