Download portlet_talk - Old STFC e-Science Centre and CSED Web Server

A Service Oriented Architecture for Portals
Using Portlets
Asif Akram, Dharmesh Chohan, Xiao Dong Wang,
Xiaobo Yang and Rob Allan
CCLRC e-Science Centre, CCLRC Daresbury
Laboratory
Warrington WA4 4AD, UK
Rob Allan
Daresbury Laboratory
Service Oriented Architecture
Advantages etc. of SOA:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Modular software
Re-usable
Loosely coupled
Components can be developed independently and swapped in/ out
based on an agreed API
Agreed protocols/ standards
Can be pluggable in one application, e.g. JSR-168 portlets
Can be distributed using Web services, e.g. WSRP
Components/ agents are self contained
Web services mean language independence
– Perl, Java, C, Python, PHP, etc.
So, can wrap existing “heritage” applications (R, C, Fortran, etc.)
Facilitates working as a distributed team – Conway’s Law Presenter Name
(Herbsleb and Grinter, IEEE Software, September 1999,
pp63-9)
Facility
Name
JISC e-FER
E-Framework for Education and Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Part of the Integrated Information Environment
Development of terminology and procedures for an SOA
Integration of many existing tools and services
Collaboration, education and research -> personal learning
Research -> information -> learning life cycle
Customisation to end-user requirements
Promote standards and re-usability
International partners
Presenter Name
Facility Name
Common Service Component Framework
Presenter Name
Facility Name
E-Research Framework Choices now
•
•
•
•
Portal Software:
– uPortal, GridSphere, Liferay, StringBeans, Jetspeed2, JBOSS,
eXo Platform
• We are evaluating these in a collaboration with Jason
Novotny and will produce a technical report
• JSR-168 portlets have been demonstrated to be portable
between frameworks
• WSRP is becoming useable
– .NET not yet evaluated
Digital Repository Software:
– Fedora, DSpace, Plone
Collaborative Software:
– Sakai, Sharepoint, NaradaBroker, Lotus Notes, OpenOffice ?
Web Services and loose coupling are helping us to realise the
vision.
Presenter Name
Facility Name
Portals and Web Services
JSR-168, WSRP
WSRP
Portlet
Portlet
Portlet
Service
SOAP, WSDL, UDDI
Service
Common Services
Service
Common
Services
Presenter
Name
Facility Name
WP2: So what Tools are we working with?
Sakai Collaboration Tools
• Schedule
• Resources
• Web Content
• Chat
• Discussion
• E-Mail
New Sakai Tools
• LDQ Upload
• Whiteboard
• CopperCore
• IRC
• Wiki
• Audio Conferencing
• Resource Search
CREE Information Tools
• JAFER
• GetRef
• HEIRPORT
• Google
Grid Tools
• MDS LDAP Browser
• Grid Proxy Manager
• Grid Job Submission
• Grid Job monitor
• Grid FTP
• InfoPortal
Other Portlets
• Narada Conferencing
• Semantic Search
Grid Markets Tools
• Negociation Client
• Payment Service Client
Data Management Tools
• SRB
• OGSA-DAI
Service Registry
• UDDI publish/ discovery
• Dynamic WSDL Interface
Support Tools
• Certificate Upload
Presenter Name
• Desktop FTP
Facility Name
WSRP Activities
Sakai/ uPortal
•
•
•
•
SunGard-led and funded: Vishal Goenka
Working with uPortal in their WSRP uPortal 3.0 effort
As we really try to use WSRP, we identify issues in the standard and
WSRP4J implementation
Sakai and uPortal are becoming involved in WSRP standards activities and
WSRP4J
UK e-Research community will organise a WSRP workshop for early 2006
• Sign up to [email protected] for information
Presenter Name
Facility Name
WSRP Consumer
Portal
WSRP
“Portal”
Apache WSRP4J
WSRP
Placements
Sakai WSRP
Sakai Sites
Kernel Tool Registry
Request Filter
Tool A
Tool B
Tool C
Web Services
Presenter Name
Facility Name
WSRP Image
Presenter Name
Facility Name
Portal Frameworks
• Sakai http://www.sakaiproject.org
– Broadly used in Collaborative Learning Environments
– Separate Sakai Evaluation Exercise done for JISC
http://www.grids.ac.uk/Sakai/sakai_doc
• uPortal http://www.uportal.org
– Widely used for academic institutional portals
• GridSphere http://www.gridsphere.org
– Earl adopter of JSR-168, EU GridLab project
• eXo Platform http://www.exoplatform.com
– Populat plaform
• LifeRay http://www.liferay.com
– Popular, good user interface, optional functionality
• StringBeans http://www.nabh.com/projects/sbportal
– Ease of use
Presenter Name
Facility Name
Evaluation Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
JSR-168 compliance
Ease of installation
Documentation standards
On-line support
– Including helpdesk, Web site, Wiki etc.
Portal management
– Ease of deploying portlets, adding users, assigning roles and categories,
skining, customisation, etc.
Portlet resources
– Built in, e.g. Grid, calendar, mail, search
Performance and scalability
– Startup time, deployment time, db access time, etc.
Security
– Compatibility with JAAS, JOSSO, SSL, etc.
Technology used
– Struts, JSF, Spring, Hibernate, Tiles, EJB, Web services, etc.
Portal features
– CMS, Workflow, Admin tools, Monitoring tools, etc.
Server dependency
WSRP compliance
Presenter Name
– Producer or consumer
Facility Name
Evaluation Results
Criteria
Portal Framework
Sakai
1.5
uPortal
Gridsphere
Exo
Liferay
Stringbeans
JSR-168
Compliance
0
5
5
5
5
5
Ease of
Installation
3
5
5
5
5
5
Ease of Use
3
5
4
5
4
5
Documentation
2
2
4
3
3
5
Support Services
3
3
4
4
3
5
Administration of
Portal
3
5
4
5
4
5
Customisation
4
3
4
3
5
4
Free Useful Portlets
4
3
4
3
5
3
Performance
2
4
3
4
3
3
Security
3
4
3
4
4
4
Technology Use
3
3
4
5
4
3
Portal Features
2
2
3
5
4
2
Server Dependency
3
3
3
4
5
3
WSRP Compliance
0
3
0
3
3
0
Total
35
49
51
57
58
51
Presenter Name
Facility Name
Evaluation Results (2)
Presenter Name
Facility Name
The Future?
Web Services/Tools
WS/WSRP
WS/WSRP
WSRP
Desktop
WS/WSRP
WS/WSRP
uPortal
Registry
Presenter Name
Facility Name