Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] Remote Server Support


The changes to org.eclipse.wst.server.core.internal.Server are actually not required - it is setting up defaults which should automatically be overwritten when the user picks a hostname. Outside of WTP we actually have a couple of (non-generic) adapters that support remote servers, so the wst.server framework should already support this unless you run into any special cases.

For the server states, I'm not convinced that we need new ones. We've seen two types of servers with similar requirements - in one case we used the same states and just used different text in the UI, and in the other there is a background thread that just updates the state between STARTED, STOPPED, or UNKNOWN. Unless we are expecting large delays when trying to connect, do we really need to have new states or display it any different to the user? If I'm not thinking along the same lines as you, a state diagram might help to clear things up.

In either case, please open a bug for this support, and so that we can track any changes. Even if you aren't done enough of your investigation to submit a patch or requirements, we can continue the discussion there or even assign the bug to you for now. :)

Arthur - The API you're suggesting already exists. org.eclipse.wst.server.core.util.SocketUtil.isLocalhost() returns true if the hostname is local, taking into account the various forms of localhost and DNS lookup.

Tim deBoer
WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada Ltd.
(905) 413-3503  (tieline 969)

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/03/2005 02:43 PM

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."

"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Re: [wtp-dev] Remote Server Support


Seems like
hostname != localhost is not a safe way since there are other ways to refer to your local machine, e.g., or use the actual hostname, e.g. at work I'm

Why not add a property to explicitly indicate local support?

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx

"Mike Reidy" <mike.reidy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/03/2005 12:40 PM

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."

"'General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.'" <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[wtp-dev] Remote Server Support

Hello WTP-Dev,

I am working on a patch to enable use of remote servers with the Generic Servers from WTP, with this in mind I have already taken out the hard-coded “localhost” hostnames in the classes org.eclipse.wst.server.core.internal.Server and org.eclipse.jst.server.generic.core.internal.GenericServerBehaviour and replaced them with calls to the method org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.getHost() which is now working.  Also I have created a server definition for a server type that has a property of supportsRemoteHosts=”true” so that I can see a servertype when I change the hostname.  I can now create a local version and a remote version of my server type, and I can even start my local server.

Where I am now is that I have got to a point that when I try to run my remote server ie. (my connect to a remote server server) it is running though a piece of code in  org.eclipse.jst.server.generic.core.internal.GenericServerBehaviour.
setupLaunch() that checks that the ports for the server are not in use and this is a problem for connecting to a remote server as this check is irrelevant, instead I would like to disable this check and anything else that is specific to using a server on a local machine in the remote case.  What would be an acceptable way of doing this?  Would hostname != localhost be enough to determine the server is a connecting to remote server rather than running a local instance of a server?
I had an idea that I might be able to create new states for the server called org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_DISCONNECTED,  org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_CONNECTING, org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_CONNECTED, org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_DISCONNECTING and use these instead of the org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_STARTING, org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_STARTED, org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_STOPPING and org.eclipse.wst.server.core.IServer.STATE_STOPPED in the case of a remote server.  Checks for these states would be added to the ones of the start server and in the case of the remote server we will progress through this 2nd set of states.

What I would like to hear from you is;

                Is this a good idea?
               Would you have a rough idea of how many places these states would be set and read?
             Would there be many complications to adding this new sequence of states?
              Would a fix like this be acceptable to you guys?  If not can you suggest to me an alternate way I might approach this?
Thank you for all your time and effort,

Mike Reidy.

wtp-dev mailing list

wtp-dev mailing list

Back to the top