| Andrew Cooke | Contents | Latest | RSS | Twitter | Previous | Next

C[omp]ute

Welcome to my blog, which was once a mailing list of the same name and is still generated by mail. Please reply via the "comment" links.

Always interested in offers/projects/new ideas. Eclectic experience in fields like: numerical computing; Python web; Java enterprise; functional languages; GPGPU; SQL databases; etc. Based in Santiago, Chile; telecommute worldwide. CV; email.

Personal Projects

Lepl parser for Python.

Colorless Green.

Photography around Santiago.

SVG experiment.

Professional Portfolio

Calibration of seismometers.

Data access via web services.

Cache rewrite.

Extending OpenSSH.

C-ORM: docs, API.

Last 100 entries

Tomato Chutney v4; Have to add...; Culturally Liberal and Nothing More; Weird Finite / Infinite Result; Your diamond is a beaten up mess; Maths Books; Good Bike Route from Providencia / Las Condes to Panul\; Iain Pears (Author of Complex Plots); Plum Jam; Excellent; More Recently; For a moment I forgot StackOverflow sucked; A Few Weeks On...; Chilean Book Recommendations; How To Write Shared Libraries; Jenny Erpenbeck (Author); Dijkstra, Coins, Tables; Python libraries error on OpenSuse; Deserving Trump; And Smugness; McCloskey Economics Trilogy; cmocka - Mocks for C; Concept Creep (Americans); Futhark - OpenCL Language; Moved / Gone; Fan and USB issues; Burgers in Santiago; The Origin of Icosahedral Symmetry in Viruses; autoenum on PyPI; Jars Explains; Tomato Chutney v3; REST; US Elections and Gender: 24 Point Swing; PPPoE on OpenSuse Leap 42.1; SuperMicro X10SDV-TLN4F/F with Opensuse Leap 42.1; Big Data AI Could Be Very Bad Indeed....; Cornering; Postcapitalism (Paul Mason); Black Science Fiction; Git is not a CDN; Mining of Massive Data Sets; Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah; How great republics meet their end; Raspberry, Strawberry and Banana Jam; Interesting Dead Areas of Math; Later Taste; For Sale; Death By Bean; It's Good!; Tomato Chutney v2; Time ATAC MX 2 Pedals - First Impressions; Online Chilean Crafts; Intellectual Variety; Taste + Texture; Time Invariance and Gauge Symmetry; Jodorowsky; Tomato Chutney; Analysis of Support for Trump; Indian SF; TP-Link TL-WR841N DNS TCP Bug; TP-Link TL-WR841N as Wireless Bridge; Sending Email On Time; Maybe run a command; Sterile Neutrinos; Strawberry and Banana Jam; The Best Of All Possible Worlds; Kenzaburo Oe: The Changeling; Peach Jam; Taste Test; Strawberry and Raspberry Jam; flac to mp3 on OpenSuse 42.1; Also, Sebald; Kenzaburo Oe Interview; Otake (Kitani Minoru) move Black 121; Is free speech in British universities under threat?; I am actually good at computers; Was This Mansplaining?; WebFaction / LetsEncrypt / General Disappointment; Sensible Philosophy of Science; George Ellis; Misplaced Intuition and Online Communities; More Reading About Japan; Visibilty / Public Comments / Domestic Violence; Ferias de Santiago; More (Clearly Deliberate); Deleted Obit Post; And then a 50 yo male posts this...; We Have Both Kinds Of Contributors; Free Springer Books; Books on Religion; Books on Linguistics; Palestinan Electronica; Books In Anthropology; Taylor Expansions of Spacetime; Info on Juniper; Efficient Stream Processing; The Moral Character of Crypto; Hearing Aid Info; Small Success With Go!; Re: Quick message - This link is broken; Adding Reverb To The Echo Chamber

© 2006-2015 Andrew Cooke (site) / post authors (content).

Mule + Java Interfaces

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:53:20 -0300 (CLST)

These are some notes I wrote at work to clarify how messaging with Mule
could (should?) work in our system.  One of the side issues here is that
it's unclear what J2EE buys us.

[...]

Consider two services implemented as:

class edu.noao.nsa.msg.SomeMessage {
  // serializable data transfer object with getters/setters
}

interface edu.noao.nsa.serviceA.ServiceA {
  public SomeResponse doSomething(SomeMessage message);
}

class edu.noao.nsa.serviceA.impl.ServiceAImpl implements ServiceA {
  // implements the functionality as a simple bean
}

@Local interface edu.noao.nsa.serviceA.ejb.ServiceALocal
extends ServiceA {}

@Remote interface edu.noao.nsa.serviceA.ejb.ServiceARemote
extends ServiceA {}

@Stateless class edu.noao.nsa.serviceA.ejb.ServiceA
extends ServiceAImpl {
  // do injection from @Resource here
}

class edu.noao.nsa.serviceB.impl.ServiceB {
  private ServiceA serviceA; // plus getters/setters
  public Object someProcess(...) {
    ...
    response = serviceA.doSomething(message);
    ...
  }
}

note the package structure:

edu
 +- noao
     +- nsa
         +- msg
         |   +- serializable message beans
         +- serviceA
         |   +- ServiceA as interface
         |   +- impl
         |   |   +- ServiceA implemented as bean
         |   +- ejb
         |   |   +- wrappers for EJB3
         |   +- test etc
         +- serviceB
             +- ServiceB as interface
             +- impl
             |   +- ServiceB implemented as bean
             +- ejb
                 +- wrappers for EJB3

Now for testing we can write Java unit tests on the impl classes.  We can
even connect together services (using Spring) to test more than one
service at a time.

Note - testing service together may seem more like integration testing,
but in the VOI we follow this same pattern down inside the VOI.  So the
VOI itself is composed of sub-services (components) that plug together as
required.  These then test as described above, but can still be deployed
separately.

The EJB wrappers do two things:
- provide Local/Remote interfaces
- do the necessary injection via @Resource


So as monolithic Java code, that just works.  Either in J2EE or in some
Spring based container.  What extra work needs to be done to deploy the
services on separate machines?

First we need to implement a proxy that intercepts the message from
serviceB.  We already have a set of MessageSender implementations which
send a message to Mule.  So the code is:

class edu.noao.nsa.serviceA.mule.ServiceAMsgProxy implements ServiceA {
  private MessageSender messageSender;
  public void setMessageSender...;
  public MessageSender getMessageSender...;
  public SomeResponse doSomething(SomeMessage message) {
    return (SomeResponse)getSender().sendSynchronous(message);
  }
}


That's it.


Seriously.  No more Java code.  That will send the message object to Mule,
which can be configured to send the message anywhere, via any messaging
system (JMS / convert it to XML / send it as an email / SOAP /
in-memory/VM etc).

This proxy is injected into ServiceB.  ServiceB sees the same interface as
before and talks to it as before.

At the ServiceA end, no extra code is needed at all.  Instead you either:
- deploy ServiceA within Mule, in which case routing is trivial
  (practically automatic)
- deploy ServiceA in EJB, in which case you configure Mule to call the EJB
  (we extend Mule to call EJBs - this was a strange ommission in Mule, but
extension - adding a new "provider" - is quite simple).

So the advantages are:
- Write and test pure Java code
- Type checking of inter-service contracts via interfaces
- No messaging code appears in the "business logic"
- All routing decisions are isolated in Mule
- Only a single, simple proxy at the sender is required
- No interface at all is required at the receiver
- The final deployment structure is not fixed in the design
- Progressively more complex messaging technologies can be configured -
Mule provides synchronous transport over asynchronous messaging

One disadvantage is organising the build so that the cross-dependencies
work OK.  This reflects the cross-dependencies in the contracts that each
service relies on - it's not an artifact of bad engineering, but a
reflection that services do depend on each other via their interfaces, and
that this should be verified as early as possible.

I suspect the best build solution is to use two passes - once to generate
the interfaces and a second time to compile code that depends on all the
interfaces available.

Andrew

Comment on this post