Spring App Server

I've just seen the annoucement that SpringSource has launched a new App Server based on OSGi (Spring-DM).
I find it a bit weird that they tend to rewrite existing stuff: the JMS JCA layer in Spring 2.x is somehow derived from the Jencks project, Spring Integration looks a lot like Camel, and now this app server which looks very similar to ServiceMix Kernel with WAR support (which we already had in ServiceMix 4 from the Pax Web project).

Comments

Jeff Yu said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
12:08 PM
Unknown said…
The key thing is not only the innovation behind the smx kernel, but the licence and community that Apache brings - it should be a no contest - smx kernel is the better option imho.
12:03 PM
Anonymous said…
Guillaume, while the JMS JCA adapter in Spring 2.5 does tackle the same problem as Jencks, I think it's fair to say that it takes a quite different route implementation-wise and configuration-wise.

Spring 2.5's JMS JCA support is technically an extension of Spring's generic JCA 1.5 support (GenericMessageEndpointManager), providing support for any kind of JCA compatible messaging - and special support for JMS on top (JmsMessageEndpointManager). The JMS-specific part is actually pretty minimal there; the heavy lifting is done in Spring's generic JCA support. The primary goal is consistency with Spring's native JMS setup style, exposed side-by-side in Spring 2.5's "jms" namespace.

Jencks on the other hand is JMS-centric for its inbound messaging support, as well as very Geronimo-oriented - with hard-coded Geronimo API dependencies all over the codebase. This is fine for its purpose, of course, which is primarily to marry ActiveMQ with Geronimo's JCA container in a standalone fashion. However, it is very different from Spring 2.5's goal which is compatibility with any JCA backend infrastructure (closely aligned with core Spring facilities).

Juergen
1:49 AM
Glyn said…
Perhaps the main difference beween the SpringSource Application Platform and the ServiceMix WAR support is the Platform's support for applications composed of multiple OSGi bundles. An application provides a useful unit of management and a boundary for application-wide class loading and weaving features.

Glyn
1:13 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