Saturday, December 29, 2007

Watch out for JBI 2.0

Currently, JBI 2.0 specification is in progress. It is expected to be finalized in Q1 of 2008. The JCP reference for JBI 2.0 is JSR 312. [Link to JSR 312]

The scope of JBI 2.0 includes followings:

  • Enhancements to facilitate the use of JBI in clustered or distributed environments, principally with respect to administration rather than the clustering/distribution mechanism itself.
  • Enhancements to clarify and enhance the use of JBI in a SOA-based approach to the creation, deployment and runtime support of Composite Applications.
  • Enhancements to support requirements stemming from WS-Policy.
  • Enhancement to support Web 2.0 technologies and usage models.
  • Introduction of a Message Exchange handler/interceptor model.
  • Enhancements to facilitate performance optimizations by component and container implementers.
  • Improved alignment with Java EE (e.g. use of transactions).
  • Recoverability of Message Exchanges.
  • Improved readability of the specification to clarify the needs of container, component and application developers.
  • Alignment with the Service Component Architecture (SCA) specifications (see www.osoa.org) with the goal of making JBI 2.0 a standard Java runtime for SCA .
  • Enhancements to support full compatibility with OSGi, without necessarily requiring OSGi.
  • Technical issues stemming from implementation experience using the JBI 1.0 specification (e.g. life-cycle of components, error handling, interop profiles, examination of the utility of WSDL definitions for non-Web Services deployed components, component attributes, threading, NIO use, classpath or endpoint activation)

The above list is taken from the proposal of JSR 312. I am more interested in the highlighted items. One of the most important drawback of JBI 1.0 is that its Normalized Message Router (NMR) is not based on a messaging system, but it is an in-memory router. It makes it a single point of failure in the system. I hope that the scope named as "Recoverability of Message Exchanges" address this issue.

No comments: