Bug 780229 (SOA-2616)
Summary: | Provide alternative registry implementation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 5 | Reporter: | Martin Weiler <mweiler> |
Component: | JBossESB, jUDDI - within SOA | Assignee: | tcunning |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | high | ||
Version: | 5.0.2 | CC: | daniel.bevenius, darran.lofthouse, kevin.conner, ldimaggi |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | FUTURE | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
URL: | http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/SOA-2616 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | Type: | Feature Request | |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Martin Weiler
2010-11-29 14:48:10 UTC
Changed to a feature request to replace jUDDI as the registry implementation. Investigation needed. See Kevin's comment. Link: Added: This issue relates to JBESB-3629 When using jUDDI v3, it makes much more sense to use user defined keys, and have part of the binding key be the host and port name. This way the existing binding keys are simply reused rather then a new set being created when the servers come back up. Also the new jUDDI v3.1 client ships with a service cache, which is updated by a subscription (when a service or endpoints change or are removed the client caches are informed). This is using standard UDDI v3 functionality so should work with any v3 registry and makes the registry much more dynamic. This reduces the problem to removing dead endpoint information of nodes that are really gone. I would think that a 3 'strikes you're out' policy in the ServiceInvoker should do the trick, that with an optional periodic query ("am I in the registry") - if not, reregistration to bring back services that could not be seen due to for example temporary network issues. "The real solution is to have a 'service repository' that reacts dynamically to cluster members appearing/disappearing" if you have this info then you can do registration/unregistration right there.. My 2 cents. --Kurt It is not the client behaviour that is the issue here, rather it is the missing 'dead endpoint information' of the nodes that have disappeared. The 'three strikes' doesn't work given the number of times this is raised by customers. Having an alternate implementation which can react to the topology changes is preferable. Kev Sorry, I should clarify and say that the 'three strikes' wouldn't work given that customers are unhappy with the current implementation (possible removal after one). |