Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
I'm in the middle of a fairly broad refactoring of the internals of the SpringSource dm Server to introduce an interface to some of the subcomponents and ensure that the rest of the code accesses those subcomponents via the interface rather than directly.
The Structure101 tool has proved invaluable in this process. It has excellent support for analysing the dependencies between components and identifying anomalous dependencies such as those from lower layers of the code to higher layers. But it also supports transformations and visibility settings which turn out to be extremely useful for refactoring.
I created transformations to collect together packages which I want to treat as a unit from the point of view of the current refactoring. This would not be possible using standard refactoring techniques as the packages in question cannot actually be renamed, for reasons I won't go into here. The transformations were of the form:
org.foo.* -> myunit.org.foo.*
org.bar.* -> myunit.org.bar.*
The transformations apply only in Structure101's model of the system and do not affect the actual code. The net is that I can then analyse dependencies on the myunit package hierarchy using Structure101's default mechanisms.
Visibility settings come in useful in identifying the pieces of code I need to refactor. By modifying the Structure101 model so that myunit is a private subcomponent of the new interface component, all dependencies on myunit from outside of the interface component show up as anomalies.
I can then use these anomalies as a 'to do' list for my refactoring. Clicking on one of them shows the precise code dependency which I can refactor by extending the interface component, if necessary, and then changing the using code to depend on the interface component. Refreshing the Structure101 model takes a few seconds after which there is one less anomaly showing on the diagram.
I've really appreciated the support from the Structure101 developers who have helped me get the best out of the tool. It sure beats some combination of grep, a cross-referencing tool like OpenGrok, plus a ton of yellow stickies...
Monday, June 09, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Today the SpringSource Application Platform shipped its first beta release. Version 1.0 is essentially a combination of Spring, OSGi and Tomcat engineered into a stand-alone runtime.
The programming model is Spring with OSGi and the option of a new packaging format: the platform archive or PAR file. A PAR file comprises multiple OSGi bundles. This brings OSGi modularity and versioning to enterprise applications.
The diagram below gives a high level view of the structure of the platform.
So what does the platform deliver over and above a standard OSGi container? Well, apart from the servlet function, integrated Spring support, the modular kernel-based runtime, and the full support for diagnostics and first failure data capture, there are quite a few features that are of interest to an OSGi audience:
- The platform has a repository which automatically provisions dependencies as bundles are installed into OSGi. This repository stores the platform's own bundles as well as application and third party bundles.
- In addition to the PAR mentioned above, there is a new concept of a library which is a named, versioned collection of OSGi bundles installed in the repository typically for use by applications. This is accessed via a new manifest header, import-library, which imports all the packages exported by the bundles of a library.
- Another new manifest header, import-bundle, imports all the packages exported by a single bundle. This avoids the need to wrap components consisting of a single bundle in a library.
- There is also some novel diagnostic help when a bundle cannot be resolved. The platform's resolution failure detective attempts to extract a concise summary of the problem and the most likely root causes.
- Associated with the platform is a carefully constructed repository of commonly used bundles: the SpringSource Enterprise Bundle Repository known informally as the "bundle repository in the sky", or "BRITS". The bundles have validated OSGi manifests and the whole repository has been checked to make sure that its bundles can be used together.
The whole platform consists of subsystems which are similar in concept to libraries but which are managed specially by the kernel. Each subsystem is a named, versioned collection of bundles. The kernel manages the installation and starting of subsystems as the platform initialises. The kernel manages the lifecycle of each subsystem and its bundles, even reacting to unsolicited lifecycle events of the bundles of a subsystem to keep the state of the subsystem consistent.
Subsystems are used to control the function of the platform. Some subsystems are always present, but others are optional and are configured in a profile. This mechanism allows the precise function of the platform to be configured without rebuilding. For instance, the shipped profile.config file (in the config directory) looks like this:
which shows the servlet container and web personality subsystems.
* SpringSource Application Platform profile manager default
* configuration file.
"version" : 1.0,
"name" : "web",
"subsystems" : ["com.springsource.platform.servlet",
My colleague Rob Harrop just blogged about the platform if you want to know more. Why not register, download the binary, have a play, and tell us what you think.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Bryan Atsatt describes a plausible way forward for JSR 277. I agree with his reasoning, although OSGi is not only the de facto standard for Java modularity, it's a proper standard too.
Bryan was one of the key movers in the Expert Group when I was involved. In fact, he proposed a solution to JSR 294 ages ago which is close, if not identical, to the approach Alex Buckley is now considering.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Bryan!
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Sunbug 6650394 is coming along nicely - both in terms of votes and supportive comments. At the time of writing, it has 99 votes, so thank you if you took the trouble to vote! If you care and you haven't yet voted or commented, please consider doing so.
I was hoping the bug would make it into Sun's Top 25 Bugs list since it has more votes than most of the bugs in that list, but for some reason it's not yet included. If the list was accurate, which it clearly isn't, then 6650394 would be the 11th most popular sunbug.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Sun has kindly raised sunbug 6650394 on my behalf to track the module system interoperation issue for JSR 277.
Please consider voting for this bug if you would like JSR 277 to interoperate with JSR 291 (OSGi). Add yourself to the watch list if you want to track the bug.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The Early Draft Review of JSR 294 is now complete. Little seems to have changed since when I left the Expert Group. The main weakness from my perspective is that a class file must name its superpackage in order for the class to be a member of the superpackage. This means that you can't easily produce a program which runs on existing versions of Java but which will take advantage of superpackages when it runs on Java 7 and beyond.
Practically speaking, this means that superpackages will only be used in applications that are willing to restrict themselves to Java 7 and beyond. So I suspect that superpackages will not come into popular usage within the next few years.
Of course, this can be gotten round by using a custom class loader with some bytecode rewriting magic, but one of the reasons that JSR 277, and its progeny JSR 294, were introduced was to avoid application developers from having to create custom class loaders.
- ► 2012 (16)
- ► 2011 (34)
- ► 2010 (22)
- ▼ 2008 (9)
- ► 2007 (107)