Distributed OSGi in Fabric

The Remote Services OSGi specification describes how services registered in an OSGi framework can be transparently accessed from another OSGi framework. This is in essence a remoting capability for OSGi services. Fabric has a very fast implementation of this specification, leveraging ZooKeeper for the discovery of services.

From the user point of view, registering a service with a property service.exported.interfaces (with a value of ‘*’ or a list of classes to expose) is the only thing to do to make a service available from the outside. The Fabric DOSGi implementation will automatically detect which services have to be imported and will automatically create a proxy in the OSGi registry for those needed. This services to be imported are found through the use of Service Hooks which enable the implementation to be aware of which services are required by existing bundles. For example, if a bundle registers a ServiceListener (directly or indirectly by using Blueprint for example), the Fabric DOSGi implementation will check if there is a local service satisfying the listener and if there’s none, it will look into the ZooKeeper registry and import a matching service.

The Fabric implementation is based on the insanely fast HawtDispatch library which has a very nice support for NIO. The result is a very fast remoting mechanism for OSGi with more than 25.000 requests per second on my laptop. This remoting mechanism is actually not dependant on OSGi and external clients can also connect to a remote OSGi service provided they can find the service identifier from ZooKeeper or some other place.

A complete example can be found in the Fabric source tree at on github.

Comments

ML said…
The example is now at:

https://github.com/fusesource/fuse/tree/master/fabric/fabric-examples/fabric-camel-dosgi
3:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Apache Karaf

ApacheCon was really interesting this year! Recently, a lot of people have expressed a real interest in ServiceMix Kernel , our generic OSGi distribution for server side applications. We've been discussing moving this subproject into Apache Felix for several reasons: raise the visibility and awareness on ServiceMix Kernel attract a broader community Several Apache projects are planning to use ServiceMix Kernel as their container: this includes Apache James , Apache Directory and Apache ActiveMQ . The Apache Sling community is also willing to contribute to this effort along with some other groups like the OPS4J project. During this discussion, a name as been proposed by Jamie Goodyear: Apache Karaf . A carafe is a small container used for serving wine and other drinks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carafe). In similarity to the name the Kernel allows applications to be more easily handled, and improves their characteristics (much like a bottle of wine left to breath in a dec...
Read more

Camel Endpoint DSL

Image
Camel Endpoint DSL One of the new features of Camel 3.0  is an Endpoint DSL.  This new API aims to provide a type safe replacement for the URLs that are used in Camel to designate the consumer or producer endpoints.  These URLs provide 3 things: the scheme of the URL identifies the component to use, a unique name or id for the endpoint, and a set of parameters to customize the endpoint behavior. Here is an example of an FTP consumer endpoint definition: from( "ftp://foo@myserver?password=secret& recursive=true& ftpClient.dataTimeout=30000& ftpClientConfig.serverLanguageCode=fr" ) .to( "bean:doSomething" ); There are several drawbacks with such constructs : no type safety, bad readability and no simple completion. So we now use the meta model, which is currently extracted from the source using an annotation processor and written in various JSON files, to generate a fluent DSL for each endpoint.  The same...
Read more

ActiveMQ Pooling

Over the past weeks, I spend some times load testing ServiceMix and ActiveMQ . I discovered two things: * ActiveMQ broker is currently single threaded for a given JMS connection. The main effect is that if you send messages from several threads on the same connection, all threads will be processing sequentially (well, not exactly, but they will all be processed by a single thread on the broker side). * ActiveMQ Resource Adapter does not pool sessions and producers: this means that sending a single message with Jencks using the JMS best practices in a J2EE environment (create a connection, create a session, create a producer, send, close all) will take three consecutive roundtrips to the JMS broker and is very CPU intensive for the broker (at least, when using JMX). The first problem is mainly apparent when using persistent messages and there are a few things than can be used to speed up things (see the LogicBlaze tuning guide for ActiveMQ). However these tuning tweaks are no...
Read more