Werner, you misunderstood my proposal. I did not suggest to define a common protocol below MQTT and AMQP. I suggested a new Java API between IP-sockets at the bottom and Servlet API at the top. This makes it easy to reuse the technology existing in current Servlet-Servers when someone is writing an MQTT or AMQP server. -Markus From: jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Werner Keil
Sent: Montag, 21. Mai 2018 20:15
To: Jakarta EE community discussions
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] About Profiles / Servlet API You are aware that each of these standards are defined elsewhere (e.g. OASIS) therefore it is important to separate the specs (if you propose something underneath MQTT or AMQP this is simply the wrong place) and implementing solutions (this is what can be shaped or influenced here)
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: JMS is for applications accessing MOMs, which in turn use AMQP/MMQT. What I proposed is a layer UNDERNEATH AMQP/MMQT. -Markus Of course AMQP / MMQT are message-based, so they are by nature closer to e.g. JMS. I can't say, what the just forming EE4J Messaging/JMS project might like to do about this, but having worked in a cross-cut between MQTT and JMS for major clients, I see potential for synergies between EE4J and IoT especially now they are both under the Eclipse umbrella On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I also thought so but in fact Servlet API only works for request-response communication models, which is not given for at least UDP, AMQP and MMQT. IMHO you cannot implement AMQP / MMQT ontop of Servlet API. -Markus I’m not up to speed on everything Servlet, but I do like the idea of breaking it up so that you have an HTTP specific Servlet and a more general Servlet programming model that can be extended to the semantics of other application protocols. I think, to some degree, this already exists its just a matter of the Servlet provider supporting the stack desired (e.g. UDP/TCP/SCTP) and then having a higher level programming model for each application protocol (e.g. HTTP, AMQP). I'd like to extend this idea by a new API for the UDP/TCP/SCTP layer: It might be useful to build the HTTP API layer (= former Servlet API) ontop of a new UDP/TCP/SCTP API layer which allows Servlet engines to replace the underlying transport technology easily. That API could wrap micro-servers dealing solely with data packets instead of application protocols. So not only HTTP would run ontop of that, but also AMQP or MQTT or even FTP. The bean driven by such a system would be a "Stream-let" or "Protocol-let" for example. So re-implementing the Servlet API would mean to write a "HttpProtocolLet", AMQP would use an "AmqpProtocolLet" etc. In the IoT-Environment this could be beneficial, and it would simply re-use the technical platform already existing e. g. in Grizzly. -Markus Hi, On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Ondrej Mihályi <ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I think that James didn't mean to toss out HTTP processing but that the servlet API isn't well suited for reactive processing. The Servlet spec is also huge, comparable to EJB and could be designed and split into multiple specs. Or even obsoleted by another more modern spec in a similar way as CDI is now obsoleting much of the EJB spec. I don't quite see the Servlet spec being deprecated / obsoleted, like EJB was. I do like the suggestion of splitting out the Servlet spec in parts. Specifically we could potentially have a core HTTP engine (like Netty, Grizzly, and Coyote), a "bare" Servlet API layer, and something like a higher level CDI based layer (making a simpler Servlet that's a proper CDI bean). Cheers, Ondrej Mihályi Senior Payara Service Engineer
Payara Server – Robust. Reliable. Supported.
E: ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx | T: +1 415 523 0175 | M: +421 902 079 891 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Payara Services Limited, Registered office: Unit 11, Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern, WR14 3SZ
Registered in England and Wales: 09998946 | www.payara.fish | info@xxxxxxxxxxx | @Payara_Fish
I think you have missed something in the Servlet programming model. While its primarily used for HTTP requests its not bound to that model or even synchronous request/response messaging. Reactive Streams could work well within the Servlet model or form another programming model. If I’m wrong than Serlvets have changed more than I thought since I used them for pure TCP/IP processing back in 1998. I’m an advocate of Reactive Streams as a new programming/processing/messaging model, but it would be premature to toss out HTTP processing and Servlets in order to embrace Reactive Streams as the “one true” model. Having been around for a long time I can tell you that today’s silver bullet often becomes tomorrows legacy nightmare. I’ve lived through that transition at least a dozen times. There is no “one true” model. There is only those options that most useful now. I don’t believe that is the fate of Reactive Streams to become legacy, but at this point its not a widely adopted programming model and I think we need to serve the needs of the mass majority of developers who use HTTP and Servlets IN ADDITION TO introducing and supporting new methods like Reactive Streams. I would not make Reactive Streams a required part of the Core at this point, but as Reza pointed out the Core can evolve over time just as well as any profile. If Reactive Streams is introduced as a Specification and wrapped into a Profile on top of the Core, it could remain very lightweight while providing a powerful programming model for those interested in that paradigm. Are servlets really necessary in the core? Yes, they may have been central to Java EE for as long as Java EE has existed, but things are changing, systems can no longer be seen is a big static state store that can just be queried and updated with synchronous communication, rather they are being build using streams, where the current state is in a constant state of converging, but never actually getting there, and communication is primarily asynchronous. Look at things like Kafka Streams and AWS Lambda and Azure Event Grid - event based systems that are only concerned with asynchronous messaging are rising rapidly in popularity at the moment. And this isn't even that new, almost 10 years ago Heroku had both web dynos and worker dynos - worker dynos had no HTTP interface, and you could argue that deploying something that started an HTTP server to a worker dyno was overkill. Now is a perfect opportunity to realign Jakarta EE with current industry trends. And even for technologies that use synchronous communication, look at the rise of things like gRPC - this does use HTTP, but not on top of servlets. No one wants to deploy both a servlet HTTP server and a gRPC server, that's too heavyweight. Other things like gRPC may well surface, do we want the servlet API to get in the way of people using these new technologies with Java EE? As a counter point against requiring servlets, the MicroProfile messaging spec currently being developed will have no dependence on servlets, and I anticipate that there will be many use cases where you'll deploy services that use nothing but MicroProfile messaging for communication, plus a database. Perhaps as little as 2 years ago, I would have agreed, servlets are core. But I think there's a big shift at the moment, and a decision to make servlets core today could leave Jakarta EE behind. You know I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, but as I suggested the truth is that none of this is about technical merit. Sometimes we really do need to just bow to where the market is driving us and not fight it. Once we have the technology on firmer footing is the time to explain to the marker why we are right. That's not now. The market demand from where I clearly have seen again and again is allowing people to start with Java EE with nothing more than Servlet and a la carte let them add whatever else on top. In addition there is a viable smaller market for one or two sensible profiles. Right now people also want fat jars and hollow uber jars. Giving people basically what we've been trying to push for years plus some ability to remove things or define things is yet another road to fighting another uphill battle that's honestly tiresome. The end result of where we are today should be telling us loud and clear we need to be thinking about these things differently going forward. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- Date: 5/20/18 4:40 PM (GMT+01:00) Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] About Profiles Hi, On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:30 PM, reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I am totally with Mark on these particular issues. Whatever the actual merits of the argument that we can argue endlessly, the reality is that customers cite Java EE "weight" as a reason to not adopt it with Docker/Cloud/Microservices, etc. It's true that this is being cited, although it's indeed "weight' between quotes. With only a few exceptions I've seen the actual weight (startup time / memory size / footprint on disk) of the supposedly lighter weight solution actually been approximately the same size or even bigger. People arguing that they use e.g. Tomcat because it starts in 500ms and is only 7MB in size, but then they add 50MB worth of libraries to /lib and an other 40MB of libraries to WEB-INF/lib. The combined whole being just under 100MB in disk space. As a second point, a (standard) static config + pruning tool would again address this concern, and I argue it can do even better than any profile ever can. Additionally I believe other than minimizing endless conflict with Spring folks over CDI, making clear what Java EE is and how well adopted/not it is, a Servlet only core is also the right answer to combat the criticism that Java EE is fat. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- Date: 5/18/18 3:47 PM (GMT+01:00) Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] About Profiles Hi, On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: This isn’t just about vendor choice. You are certainly not alone in being happy with the full profile option. However, there are other classes of users/developers that aren’t and these have existed since the dawn of J2EE. For example, some people want to deploy their favour app server on to constrained devices which may be running on the cloud where an additional 50MB costs real money when run for hours or days or weeks or longer. I wonder, is there in practice any service / device where a mere 50MB of disk space makes all the difference?
You mean apart from cloud (yes, those 1 cent costs do add up, and there’s private cloud deployments of which you may be unaware and have some funky architectural choices behind them), IoT? Oh and maybe it’s not just 50MB but some modern implementations can still be a bit “plump” in some areas ;) Some developers want to reduce the maintenance complexity or boot time of their favourite app server by stripping out those capabilities they don’t want.
For that particular issue a static configuration (such as liberty's server.xml and in limited way JBoss/WildFly's standalone.xml), and/or the aforementioned prune tool would work just as well. And then we get into the world of portability. As a developer I want to know a priori that my app will work across app servers and I really don’t want to have to check when I do the migration. Having app server A and B both say they support and are compliant with Profile X is extremely useful. Now you could argue that these developers could just do this themselves anyway, e.g., JBossAS has supported this kind of pruning from the start. However, if you want portability and interoperability of your apps so you’re not tied to a specific app server implementation/vendor, having standardised profiles is the right approach.
Or a standardised static config, perhaps? And what would we call those static configs. Oh hold on, let me suggest … profiles? ;) As a user of JavaEE, I do not get the idea behind having multiple profiles. May someone can explain the benefits for users? If I can have a single profile with all available features, I would take it and I do not bother using a server which is 50MB larger of one with a „smaller“ profile. I can understand that it could be harder for vendors to enter the market having to provide the full profile. But for me, this would not be an argument for using smaller profiles. I’d rather take a server from a vendor which offers me the full profile. If I would use the MicroProfile and want to have JPA, do I have to add external dependencies? I really like some of the new APIs of the MicroProfile and would be happy to see them coming to JakartaEE. Hopefully others have responded already but … it’s for both: quick summary … vendors so they can ensure conformance and users so they can ensure portability and interoperability of their apps. Speaking with my MicroProfile hat on, I for one would not want to trade the current MicroProfile for a full Jakarta EE profile and neither would our users. So then the first question is perhaps; who wants profiles and benefits from it? Is a profile intended for vendors or for users?
Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA) _______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
-- James Roper
Senior Octonaut _______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
--
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
--
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
|
