Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Initial remoting via HTTP upgrade support #4447

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

stuartwdouglas
Copy link
Contributor

This commit adds support for multiplexing remoting over the
management HTTP server port. By default the management
remoting port will no longer be availble, which will
break out of the box compatibility with older clients.

This commit does not address the remoting subsystem
endpoint used by EJB and remoting naming. This will be
added in a later commit.

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Triggering build using a merge of 2b53ae84491cf304507638688566ee2f030456a5 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 6946 is now running using a merge of 2b53ae84491cf304507638688566ee2f030456a5 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/6946

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 6946 outcome was ABORTED using a merge of 2b53ae84491cf304507638688566ee2f030456a5 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/6946
Public: http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/wildfly-param-pull/6946

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Triggering build using a merge of 1ea26b20c48ef53cfa3ca55eb5258654930f20e4 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 6947 is now running using a merge of 1ea26b20c48ef53cfa3ca55eb5258654930f20e4 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/6947

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 6947 outcome was ABORTED using a merge of 1ea26b20c48ef53cfa3ca55eb5258654930f20e4 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/6947
Public: http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/wildfly-param-pull/6947

@ctomc
Copy link
Contributor

ctomc commented Apr 30, 2013

retest this please

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Triggering build using a merge of 1ea26b20c48ef53cfa3ca55eb5258654930f20e4 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 6948 is now running using a merge of 1ea26b20c48ef53cfa3ca55eb5258654930f20e4 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/6948

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 6948 outcome was ABORTED using a merge of 1ea26b20c48ef53cfa3ca55eb5258654930f20e4 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/6948
Public: http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/wildfly-param-pull/6948

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Triggering build using a merge of 12017f0dc2f4620fbc2869498fd286bb1e110fe6 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 6951 is now running using a merge of 12017f0dc2f4620fbc2869498fd286bb1e110fe6 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/6951

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 6951 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 12017f0dc2f4620fbc2869498fd286bb1e110fe6 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/6951
Public: http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/wildfly-param-pull/6951

@bstansberry
Copy link
Contributor

Why change the default and break things like JBDS? IMO we should wait until we have worked out how they will adapt.

@stuartwdouglas
Copy link
Contributor Author

Because otherwise you cannot connect to a default server using the default settings, as the remoting port is not open by default.

One option would be to leave the remoting port in our default configs, but that kind of defeats the purpose as we are trying to reduce our out of the box port usage. We could do it temporarily for now until JBDS has time to adjust though?

@bstansberry
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I think we should do it temporarily.

This is just MHO, but I think reducing our out-of-the-box port usage is more of a secondary goal. The key thing is users being able to reduce port usage if desired. Obviously we don't want to use more ports than is necessary.

It IS important that JBDS adapts to this though, as they'll want to be able to work with WF instances in constrained environments like OpenShift that will certainly configure the minimum number of ports. So, +1 to eventually changing the default.

@stuartwdouglas
Copy link
Contributor Author

So maybe I should change default config to still open a remoting port for now, then remove it again after Alpha1, so there is always a released version of the client that is compatible with wildfly?

My thoughts were that it would be better to just make the change and force clients to deal with it, otherwise there will likely always be something that we are keeping the remoting port in the default config for.

@bstansberry
Copy link
Contributor

I pinged Max Andersen and Rob Stryker to be sure they are aware of this coming change.

The "remove after Alpha1" approach sounds reasonable.

This commit adds support for multiplexing the remoting protocol over
the HTTP management port, removing the need for two seperate management
ports.

Port 9999 is now no longer present in the default config, and the
management client will attempt to connect via a HTTP upgrade by
default.
@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Triggering build using a merge of 1db0f2eeae0d096e3510c3a702b67a5d58855aa3 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 7053 is now running using a merge of 1db0f2eeae0d096e3510c3a702b67a5d58855aa3 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/7053

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 7053 outcome was FAILURE using a merge of 1db0f2eeae0d096e3510c3a702b67a5d58855aa3 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/7053
Public: http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/wildfly-param-pull/7053

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Triggering build using a merge of 637aa537b22bddfa89e03cc810a1cd00a08d5a26 on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Triggering build using a merge of 9357982147760ceb6417a2966a919f685b6679db on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 7055 is now running using a merge of 9357982147760ceb6417a2966a919f685b6679db on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/7055

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 7055 outcome was FAILURE using a merge of 9357982147760ceb6417a2966a919f685b6679db on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/7055
Public: http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/wildfly-param-pull/7055

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Triggering build using a merge of 730949e on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 7056 is now running using a merge of 730949e on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/7056

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Build 7056 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 730949e on branch master:
Private: http://lightning.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/jenkins/job/wildfly-param-pull/7056
Public: http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/wildfly-param-pull/7056

@stuartwdouglas
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have modified this so the default config still has port 9999 open.

@n1hility
Copy link
Member

merging

@n1hility
Copy link
Member

merged

@n1hility n1hility closed this May 16, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants