The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

Place API Design Review with the Jini Team
Questions Raised and Answers Offered
by Bill Venners

Advertisement

On Thursday, March 8, 2001, I had the privilege to visit the Jini team at Sun Burlington and discuss the Place API in the room with white board walls and bean bag chairs. Our discussions didn't dip down to the level of classes and interfaces and method names, but hovered instead at a higher, more conceptual level. The Jini team asked me questions about the basic approaches taken by the Place API. In this document I attempt to summarize the questions I was asked and the answers I gave (or should have given -- in many cases I have been able to come up with better answers after a week of reflection.).

Why do you need a standard service API? Why can't this functionality just be something the UI provides?

One of the basic thrusts of the questioning challenged me to justify the need for a standard way to provide the functionality of the Place API in a Jini service proxy. "Why can't each UI that a human uses simply provide the functionality itself?" I was asked. In other words, couldn't Service UIs use proprietary Link-like objects, which wouldn't need to be known to the underlying service proxy or standardized?

Design Philosophy: Separate Functionality and UI

I'll begin answering this question by stating and attempting to justify my basic design philosophy for Jini service UIs. I feel that, to the extent it is practical, the complete functionality of a Jini service should be embodied in the interface of the service proxy. A service UI should just provide users access to functionality present in the service proxy interface, and not add extra functionality. I admit that sometimes functionality exists that only makes sense for users, and in that case it can be overkill to try and force that functionality down into the service proxy interface. But in general my design sensibilities push me to attempt to capture as much of the functionality of a service as possible in the interface of the service proxy, even if the service is only intended to be used with a service UI.

One advantage of embodying service functionality in the service proxy is that the functionality can be accessed both by software agents and users. Software agents can access the functionality directly by invoking methods on the proxy interface. Human users can access the functionality indirectly via client UIs and/or service UIs. The Jini team was certainly aware of this advantage, but pressed me to give them examples in which I thought software agents would in practice need to follow Links. I'll address that question later in this document.

The other main justification for my separate the UI and functionality philosophy involves software project management. Were I a manager of a development team responsible for a Jini service and its UIs, I would encourage my team to separate UI and functionality so that the functionality code just exists in one object. As a manager, I'd want to avoid replicating functionality code in each UI, so that when functionality needs to be updated, only one object need be updated. It is true that my team could model the functionality in an object whose code is just included in the JAR file for each UI, but if that object represents the functionality of the service, it should likely be the service proxy.

Moreover, one advantage of the service UI architecture that I often cite is because UI and functionality are kept separate, it is easier to evolve the UI without breaking the functionality, and vice versa. Both UI and functionality code evolve over time, but often UI code evolves at a greater rate. Good UIs are hard to design. They usually require a lot of iterations and user testing. When UI and functionality are intermingled, it raises the risk of improving the user experience of the functionality. When programmers go in to change the look and feel, say, they can end up creating bugs in the intermingled functionality code.

On the other hand, the question Bob posed was why there needs to be a standard way to do Links. In the absence of a standard Place API, could I as a project manager not move the functionality of the link activations to the service proxy using my own proprietary interfaces? I could indeed. Nevertheless, I feel a standard API is justified because of:

Standard Needed Because of Security

One of the opportunities I try to sieze in the Place API is raising the level of abstraction of the URL. Whereas a URL is data, a Link is an object, a bundle of behavior. I can send you a URL across the network, but to use that URL you need to understand the protocol. In addition, I need to know the host and port name where a server is running. You have to be able to get to that server. I can only specify one server and port, and the I must be able to express any other information about how to retrieve the resource in the filename portion of the URL. If I send you a Link across the network, by contrast, all you need to know is that by invoking its activate method, the Link will retrieve the service for you. The responsibility for knowing how to retrieve the service belongs to the Link object itself, not the client that receives the Link object. I claim that this "raises the level of abstraction" of the URL because the contract between a Link recipient and the Link provider is more abstract than the contract between a URL recipient and a URL provider. In the case of URLs, the contract involves the bits and bytes of protocols, assumes the provider knows a host and port number, assumes there is only one host and port number, and assumes that any other information can be embodied in the filename portion. In the case of Links, the contract involves abstract behavior-oriented semantics of the activate method, which says simply, "Retrieve this service."

The more abstract contract of Link makes it much easier to send innovative and new kinds of links across the network, including many kinds of things I can imagine doing with Jini lookup services. A Link could, for example, do discovery, perform lookups by type and attributes, and sort through multiple matches of those lookups using an algorithm that was sent across the network as part of the Link object's class. That would be hard indeed to express in a URL.

One difficulty with giving the Link object responsibility for retrieving a service, however, is that in practice the Link can't do anything it wants to retrieve the service. The Link can only do things allowed by the client side security policy. Because of this, I believe we need some standard implementations of the Link interface sitting on the client already, implementations which are trusted by the client. (In the current incarnation of the Place API, three such trusted implementations exist: UnicastDiscoveryLink, MulticastDiscoveryLink, and URLLink, all of which are declared final.) In addition, we need a standard way to ask the client to present a service. This shows up in the Place API as the ServicePresenter interface. When the user indicates to a Place service UI that a Link should be activated, the service UI would in general delegate that job to the ServicePresenter by invoking its presentService method, passing in the Link object to be activated. The presentService method would ultimately activate the Link by invoking the Link's activate method. But if the Link is an instance of any of the trusted Link implementations, the presentService would wrap the Link activation in a doPrivileged invocation, so that stack inspection stops before reaching the potentially untrusted code of the service UI initiating the activation. If the Link object is not an instance of any trusted implementation, the presentService method just invokes activate and the Link will only be allowed to do things permitted by normal stack inspection.

Another aspect of security that I've put into the presentService method is that it returns void. A service UI that invokes presentService not only doesn't get back the resulting ServiceItem, it can't find out if the activation succeeded or not. The user, however, will know. The ServicePresenter, if the activation is successful, will present the service to the user, likely via a service UI. If the activation fails or is aborted by the user, the ServicePresenter can indicate that status to the user. The user knows the results and gets the service, but untrusted service UI code that initially invoked presentService does not.

In short, the realities of client side security policies call for a standard client-side API that enables untrusted code to ask the client to present a service to the user. This shows up in the Place API (which in my world-view will be installed at the client on top of the J2SE, Jini, and Service UI APIs) as the ServicePresenter's presentService method, which takes one parameter, a Link. Thus a standard Link interface is needed, as well as a handful of useful trusted implementations of Link, such as UnicastDiscoveryLink, MulticastDiscoveryLink, and URLLink.

Standard Needed For User Experience

Besides security, however, another justification exists for a standard way to ask the client (such as a browser) to activate a Link and present the resulting service to the user. First of all, the Service UI architecture requires that UI providers describe their UIs, clients decide which UI to use. Thus, only the client knows how to determine which UI is most appropriate. Network mobile code for a Place service would not be able to select a UI from a list of UIDescriptors without the client's help. So at a minimum a service or service UI, were it to successfully activate a Link itself and receive a ServiceItem, would need some way to ask the client to select an appropriate UI among all the UIDescriptors appearing in that ServiceItem.

At one point during the review, I was asked why the client couldn't pass in some data indicating what kind of UI it wanted. This approach was discussed during the course of the service UI project. It was rejected in favor of letting the client decide, primarily because we felt it was easier for a UI provider to provide information describing what a particular UI is than it would be for a client to provide information describing what kind of UI they want. Imagine you sit down at a restaurant, and instead of a menu the waiter brings you a long form to fill out. On the form you indicate what kinds of food you like and don't like, what things you are allergic too, and so on. The waiter then takes the form back to the kitchen and the cook decides for you what kind of meal you want. I would expect that kind of system to produce fewer happy customers than the traditional approach where the waiter brings menu of meal descriptions, and the customer who must ultimately eat the meal sorts through the descriptions and makes the decision. But what's really the crux of the problem with the fill-in-a-form approach is figuring out what questions to ask on the form. I think it's easier to describe actual meal choices than it is to describe customer preferences for meals. The best kind of "data," therefore, with which a client can express its UI preferences are bytecodes that sort through descriptions of actual available UIs.

Another problem, aside from the need for clients to select the most appropriate UI, involves the desire by client providers to give their users a uniform experience of network-delivered services. A "UI selector" method in a standard API could conceivably enable a service UI to pass in an array of UIDescriptors. The implementation of that UI selector method (the client) could sort through those UIDescriptors, select one, and return that selection to the service UI. (Actually, now that I think of it, we may want to add such a method to ServicePresenter.) The trouble is that unless the service UI is going to embed the selected UI in itself, it doesn't really know what to do with that UI. For example, in the Montage browser, a UI either pops up into its own frame, or appears kind of like a web page in an existing browser frame. An arbitrary service UI can't really know how a client presents UIs to the user -- only the client itself knows. By enabling the service UI to delegate the job of presenting a service UI to the user, the client is able to provide the user with a more seamless experience. For example, Montage is able to overlay service UIs in the same browser window, or pop them up into their own frame, depending upon the kinds of UIDescriptors found in the ServiceItem. A standard API that defines a standard way to ask the client to present a service is required to enable clients to give their users such a seamless experience of using network-delivered services.

Client UIs, Third Party Service UIs, and Software Agents

The third justification for having a standard Place API is that it enables code to interact with Place service functionality directly. Three kinds of code I can imagine using Place services directly are client UIs, third party service UIs, and software agents.

When I mentioned client UIs, I was challenged to come up with some compelling examples of client UIs for Place services. Bob Scheifler commented that a Place service is basically an unordered collection of Links. "Most web pages aren't just unordered collections of links," he said. The point was that a web page that provided solely an unordered collection of links probably wouldn't be very useful, and neither would a client UI of a Place service.

Jim Waldo also wanted to pin me down on whether I wanted Place services to be used by client UIs or service UIs, but I was slippery. "Both," I said. Jim pointed out that this issue really goes back to the old question of who gets to decide how to present network-delivered content. In the early days of the web, the thinking was that the client would decide how to present the content, but the content providers complained. Content providers wanted to control presentation, saying that "the presentation of the content is part of the content."

Unfortunately, when I was put on the spot in the design review, I couldn't think of many examples of client UIs. Since then, however, I have thought of several. For example, one kind of browser I have wanted to eventually build has a tree view on the left and a service UI on the right. The tree view on the left provides a hierarchical view of the "objects" and "places" the user has navigated through, starting with his "first place," much as the tree view in Windows Explorer provides a hierarchical view of files and directories. The tree view provides an easy to navigate history of places and objects the user has visited, plus a way to hop to new places. At any time, only one link can be selected in the tree view. When a link is selected, the link is activated and the resulting service UI is displayed in the right hand window. Although the right hand window would display service UIs, the tree view to the left is in effect a client UI of the Place services the user has visited.

Another potential use for a client UI of Place services is a "Save Object" dialog box, which lets users navigate their own hierarchy of modifiable places, searching for just the right place to put a Link to a particular object. This example points out that although a Place service does provide an unordered collection of Links, that doesn't mean a Place service won't have a more orderly presentation by the time the user sees it. A Save Object dialog box could, for example, arrange the Links in alphabetical order. A Lifestreams style client UI could arrange Links by order of last-modified date. And in addition to order or other presentation context layered on by UI objects, subtypes of the existing collection types in the API could yield up order at the API level.

Another possible client UI is a speech-enabled UI for the dashboard of your car that could read out a list of Links at a Place and let you activate one by voice command. Peter Korn (Sun accessibility team) would say that when you drive your car you have a "situational disability" in that you can't use your eyes or hands to operate a software service. Many people, of course, live with such disabilities all the time. Client UIs could be used to grant people with disabilities, be they situational or permanent, access to Place services.

Besides client UIs, another way that the Place API could be used is by third-party UIs registered with UIDescriptors in existing services. If service providers all use non-standard APIs for Link functionality, life is more difficult for developers wishing to create third party UIs. Given a standard Place API, third party UI developers can developer their UIs to that one standard. Such third-party UIs could address accessibility needs, or simply user preferences. If a user likes ZoomWorlds, for example, she could purchase a ZoomWorlds service UI and register its UIDescriptor in her Place services. (ZoomWorlds, a UI metaphor described by Jef Raskin in his book The Humane Interface, positions services at the same X and Y location on a two-dimensional surface on which users can move around, and zoom in and out, to locate desired services.)

Lastly, a standard Place API enables Place services to be used directly by software agents in the absence of a user. The example I offered here was search engine spiders following Links and collecting information about the resulting service. Bob Scheifler asked me, "Are search engine spiders the only way you can imagine software directly using a Place service?" The general feeling seemed to be that spiders were not a compelling example, because one could imagine a spider collecting information about services using other mechanisms, such as by traversing a federation of lookup services. Or one could imagine better ways to solve the search problem in general, such as a publish and subscribe scheme. I myself am interested in exploring more spontaneous search approaches such as that used by GNUtella, and my interested is piqued by the suggestion of a publish/subscribe approach. Nevertheless, I would claim that enabling search agents to follow links is useful, because it is how people find things today on the web, and I want people to be able to find Jini services that way too.

I did ultimately admit to Jim Waldo that I expected that most of the time, people would use service UIs for Place services, so I fall more on the side of "letting the content provider control the presentation." But I insisted that I still think it's important that people can use client UIs if they want. By defining a Place API standard, both client UIs and (primary or third-party) service UIs are possible, as well as direct use by software agents such as search engine spiders. One last point I would make is that technologies are always used in ways their designers never imagine. If we define a standard Place API, people will use it in ways they find valuable, but which we never imagined or expected.

Why isn't the result of a Link activation a UI instead of a ServiceItem?

One of the fundamental questions that Bob Scheifler asked was "Why not just have long term relationship to a UI?" The Link interface has just one method in it, activate. The activate method is reponsible for retrieving a service. The client that invokes activate must pass in an ActivationClient through which the Link, if the activation is successful, sends the client a ServiceItem. This question basically asks why the result of a Link activation is a service UI rather than a ServiceItem.

I can think of three justifications that Link activation results in a ServiceItem:

  1. Link code doesn't know which UIDescriptor to pick, though as described previously this could be solved by having a standard method Link code could call to ask the client to pick a best-fit service UI.
  2. By letting the client also present the UI in addition to selecting it, client programs (browsers) can provide the user experience a more uniform or seamless experience of using network-delivered services.
  3. Returning a ServiceItem opens up the possibility that software agents can activate Links and either use the service proxy directly, collect information about the service, or present the service to a user via a client UI.

I elaborated on all three reasons in the previous answer.

Why would anyone want a client UI of a place?

I addressed this question in my first answer. In short:

Most often, I expect people to use service UIs for Place services, but I expect that sometimes they will want to use client UIs.

Why can't a link just be used by a UI?

I answered this question in my first answer as well, but I wanted to add one more point. A service UI could activate a Link itself. (I.e., not delegate the activation to the ServicePresenter.) If the security manager allows it, the service UI would receive a ServiceItem. The service UI could then potentially select a UI that matches its own selection criteria, and then embed that UI inside of itself. This possibility is why I realized that perhaps it would be good to have a method in ServicePresenter that selects a best-fit UIDescriptor from a passed array. Such a method could help the service UI decide which UI to embed inside itself.

Why is localizable information part of the LinkItem?

This was a good question. I believe Jim Waldo said the existence of localizable info in the Place API gave him a funny feeling, and frankly it does me too. One of the first decisions we made in the service UI project is that UI should not be mixed in with the service proxy, UI should be a separate object. And here we are putting localizable information in a service API. So why is it there?

The reason is that I can imagine many situations in which it is useful to have localizable information associated with the Link itself. First of all, this kind of information would likely be used by many service UIs, so one might be inclined to to factor this information out into the proxy used by those UIs. If a user changes the name associated with a Link in her home Place, that new name will appear in all UIs with which she accesses her home place from then on. In addition, client UIs would want some basic information about the service to present the service to the user. This information could be retrieved by following the Link and getting it out of the ServiceItem (i.e., from a LinkEntry), but that would require a lot more network traffic and user wait time. One way to think about the localizable information, therefore, is that it is a client-side cache of a certain amount of information about the linked-to service.

One other reason for including localizable information with a Link is that I want users to be able to move Links from one Place service to other (modifiable) Place services. If Swing service UIs are representing Place, then a drag and drop approach could be used. But because we can't assume that UIs will always be Swing, we can't assume that drag and drop will always be available. Thus, I think the ability to move Links from one Place to another needs to be possible at the Place API level, so that it can be supported irrespective of the UI type. When a Link moves, some amount of localizable information about that Link should move too.

Do people really want long term relationships to services whose functionality is the same, but the UI adapts from device to device?

Bob Scheifler posed this question, and frankly the answer is, "I don't know." I believe people will want to access their services from many different geographic locations and that likely they'll want to access them from an assortment of different devices. It is an assumption that underlies this whole effort, but it is a guess.

How did you get to that first place in the first place?

Bob Scheifler kept asking this question using those words. My answer to that question is kind of embedded in the question. Currently I configure my web browser to go to an initial page. Similarly, users of a network of services could configure their browsers to go to an initial place, which I like to call "first place." So to get to the first place, you just go to your first place. When you start up your personal computer, you ultimately end up on a screen that shows the desktop, usually full of icons and menus and so on, which represent links to applications and other services you like to use a lot. That is like the "first place" you go when you use your monolithic PC. If you are using the network as your PC, then when you turn on your device, it would just bring up your first place. If you walk up to a third party device, such as a PC at an internet cafe, you could get to your first place by typing in a URL and somehow authenticating yourself.

One other relevant experience I had while in the bean bag room was seeing a Sun Ray for the first time, a kind of network appliance that you can plug your card into and get your "session" as you last left it. Perhaps what people really want to go to initially is their current session, not their first place. I want to think about that.

Why drop referential integrity?

Jim Waldo questioned our dropping of referential integrity, which the Jini team worked very hard to get, by defining Links that could be broken. One answer I had to this question is that referential integrity is most important for spontaneous networking. If I'm looking for a printer, I only want to know about printers that aren't on fire. But if I'm looking for my email service, a service with which I have a long term relationship, I don't want any old email service. If my email service has moved and didn't tell me, and my Link to it doesn't work anymore, I don't want a different email service. I want my Link to not work, which would tell me that I need to go find out where it went.

But on the other hand what I really want is a self-healing network of Links. That when my email service moved, that my Link to it was automatically updated. There is nothing in the API currently to address this, but one could imagine some approaches. For example, there could be an interface optionally implemented by Links that enables a Place server to register as interested in being notified when a Link needs to be updated. Or, a Place server could occasionally poll, follow the Links to make sure they are still valid. Or, a Place service proxy could implement an interface that allows it to be notified when a Link activation results in a redirect. We probably need to define a kind of "redirect," in which a replacement Link can be sent in lieu of the actual service.

Conclusion

I want to again thank the Jini team for making time to discuss the Place API. It had been about one year since I first spent time in the bean bag room during the Service UI design review. It was great to see everyone in Burlington again. The visit was very stimulating and productive. I was asked a lot of hard questions which made me think and gave me ideas for further exploration. If this document has stimulated ideas or questions in your mind, please post them to the cyberspace@jini.org mailing list.

ServiceUI is a trademark of Artima Software, Inc.

Sponsored Links



Google
  Web Artima.com   
Copyright © 1996-2014 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Advertise with Us