I am all for most of what you suggest. I do think that we should separate the issues of remote p2 and remote messaging. For example it is not clear that remote references and tc would me something we want to get into for p2. As such, ECG should be doing the comma infrastructre and then p2 should use that to make available it's function remotely. This this way the story is clear to consumers and we end up with a cleaner structure.
Jeff McAffer wrote:
The p2 repo API has not been particularly designed to support remoting. That is, I*Repository was not really intended to be used as a remote interface. Frankly we just did not think of it that way. Instead we imagined that people wanting to have a repo on another server would implement the actual repo using whatever server side technology appropriate (e.g., database, sql, ...) and then implement a "client-side" I*Repository. The client side would talk to the server using mechanisms appropriate to the configuration. There is no expectation that the server be Java etc etc. The client is also free to do any amount of caching etc that it wants to.
In this way the users of I*Repository are completely isolated from the implementation details of the server and the repo implementors are free to optimize/implement as they choose.
Does your usecase fit this model?
Of course, it would also be interesting to consider changes to the p2 API to better facilitate remote calls. Please open enhancement requests if you see any such opportunities.
I think it would be desirable to have a completely separate/new/simpler API for remote p2 access rather than attempt to modify the p2 API to facilitate transparent remote access.
1) There will likely be a number of differences in API behavior for things like failure/exception handling, timing (e.g. IProgressMonitor, etc), and synchronization
2) Consistent/proper handling of mechanisms like pass-by-reference/distributed garbage collection
3) Ability to use asynch messaging, futures, as well as call/return semantics for remote access...which is very helpful in remote situations, but unavailable via transparent remoting
4) Ability to use multiple/various network transport bindings as per ECF's remote services API
5) Ability to use network discovery mechanisms for remote access (i.e. discovery API)
I would propose that ECF (with p2/Equinox/communities) should take this on as a sub-component within the Runtime project (where ECF is headed) and work together among interested parties.
and obviously Thomas has already done some work on this as well. So given the basic goal here (remote provisioning of Equinox/RCP/Eclipse apps) it seems to me to be a good area for the Runtime project, Equinox p2, and ECF.
ecf-dev mailing list