Add "Hosting Process" data to Heartbeats

[dannycohen]

As Opie, I need to be able to uniquely identify the specific endpoint hosting process that sent a heartbeat.
This is especially true when more than one instance of the endpoints is located in the same machine (AKA "side by side") It also applies when the endpoint is hosted in IIS or other custom hosting.

Visualization

1. In SI, we will be including the "Hosting Process" information in endpoint properties / tooltip info.
2. In SP, it will be displayed in the Endpoints List (monitored only, since it relies on heartbeats).

Proposed Implementation

1. As discussed with @andreasohlund
2. Add "Hosting Process" property to Heartbeat messages
3. Hosting Process data should contain all types information that can assist Opie to locate the specific process that hosts the endpoint on a specific machine
4. This information may include:
   • windows service name
   • machine logical name (role instance id in the case of Azure PaaS)
   • executable location path
   • executable launch parameters
   • executable configuration file (or specific values)
   • Process ID (highly volatile)
5. Proposed format:

EndpointLocation: "ServiceName=VideoStore.Content;Path=c:\app\VideoStore.Content\NServiceBus.Host.exe;ProcessId=2258"

• Convert the Endpoint data in SC to contain the "Hosting Process" property
• A unique identification of an endpoint in the message list will be based on three properties:
  1. Endpoint Name (required)
  2. Machine Name (required)
  3. Hosting Process (optional, since it will only be available when a heartbeats plugin is available)

[johnsimons]

Too much technical detail.
Also OPS will be interacting with SP, so this requirement is really a SP one.

I've opened the issue in SP - Particular/ServicePulse#94

[dannycohen]

@johnsimons - See requirement for technical detail in Particular/ServicePulse#94 (comment)

It can be added now or later, here or in SP repo, but we need the technical details well defined so we align SI (since this applies to SI as well as to SP, as specified above).

[johnsimons]

What's this "we"?
We all the same people here, I'm capable of doing SP and SI changes given
the requirements.

On Saturday, 8 February 2014, Danny Cohen notifications@github.com wrote:

@johnsimons https://github.com/johnsimons - See requirement for
technical detail in Particular/ServicePulse#94 (comment)Particular/ServicePulse#94 (comment)

It can be added now or later, here or in SP repo, but we need the
technical details well defined so we align SI (since this applies to SI as
well as to SP, as specified above).

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/180#issuecomment-34537317
.

[dannycohen]

@johnsimons - "we", includes anyone who is interested in knowing what you are planning to do.

This may include but is not limited to:

• Whoever implements it in SP
• Whoever implements it in SI
• Whoever is going to write 3rd party customization using SC HTTP API
• Whoever is going to write a docu on SC that refers to this topic

In general, I am asking that whatever format you define - please describe it.