On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I checked in a change under r707218. >> >> 1) Add getBindingInvocation() method to RuntimeWire to build up an >> invocation for the binding endpoint. >> 2) Define two more stages (reference.binding and service.binding) and a >> few built-in phases for these two stages. >> >> I think there are opportunities to further rationalize/cleanup the >> following interfaces: >> >> Endpoint and EndpointReference >> RuntimeWire and EndpointWire >> >> Thanks, >> Raymond >> >> From: Simon Laws >> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:32 AM >> To: [email protected] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Request Response Binding - was: Re: Tuscany data binding >> framework enhancements >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:07 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:49 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:35 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm particularly interested in those who put the provider framwork in >> place see the addition of binding configuration see this as an extension of >> the binding providers or see this as a new set of providers? >> >> >> >> This is looking like a new type of extension to me, people should be able >> to contribute new wireFormatters and have them made available for use within >> the Tuscany runtime. Its also looking like this should be possible to do at >> the application level. >> >> So Tuscany would come with a bunch of wireFormat extensions just like it >> already has a bunch of binding and implementation extensions. Something >> somewhere would define what the default wireFormat extension is to use with >> each binding when no <wireFormat> element is in the SCDL. So there would be >> a self contained JMS wireformat extension which implements the defaults as >> defined in section 5.2 in the JMS binding spec and you'd be able to do: >> >> <reference ...> >> <binding.jms> >> <wireFormat.jms/> >> </binding.jms> >> </reference> >> >> but that would be the default so the same as: >> >> <reference ...> >> <binding.jms /> >> </reference> >> >> Users could also do >> >> <reference ...> >> <binding.jms> >> <wireFormat.myFunkyFormatter/> >> </binding.jms> >> </reference> >> >> and have the 'myFunkyFormatter' extension as part of their application not >> some jar that needs to be added to the Tuscany runtime. >> >> We could use the definitions.xml file to define things like the default >> formatter for a binding, it also seems like that old discussion on using the >> definitions.xml file to declare the extensions would help with the >> myFunkyFormatter case as described at: >> http://apache.markmail.org/message/unubgkqdcwwch66m >> >> ...ant >> >> >> >> >> So there are two points here then >> >> 1. wireFormat as a separate extension point. >> >> Ok so that could work. We would need the usual provider structure for >> wireFormat and operationSelection. Then we need some new bits to get the >> associated interceptors in the right place. >> >> - A wire structure managed by the bindingListener/bindingInvoker >> - some predefined "wire format" and "operation selection" phases on the >> new wire that ensure that the interceptors get put in the correct place >> - A mechanism where, as you suggest, the binding can instigate defaults >> when no specifics are included in the SCDL. This could be as easy as >> completing the model based on definitions.xml entries >> - Code to read the model, select the appropriate factory and popoulate the >> new wire with interceptors from the binding and from wireFormat and >> operationSelector >> >> 2. extension points (wireFormat in this case) provided in SCA >> contributions >> >> Personally I'd like to keep this separate from 2 for the time being. Only >> because it's easier in the first instance to go with adding extensions via >> the META-INF/services mechanisms while we work out what the extension points >> should look like. Having looked back over the ML conversation on >> definitions.xml though it does seem that there was a desire to allow some >> extensions to be added to the runtime as part of a contribution. We can't >> even do this with policy today so something like wireFormat would be a >> isolated case to look at. I still want to get the extension point right >> first though. Doesn't stop others looking at this if they want to of course. >> >> Simon >> >> >> >> Do you mean do this with a stepping stone approach, so do (1) then do (2), >> or do you mean only do (1) and if someone out there in the community ever >> feels like contributing (2) then good for them and we'd probably take it? >> I'm asking because if users can't contribute a custom wireFormat then we'll >> need to provide a way to configure some Tuscany specific one, and if thats >> all we're doing how is that better than Tuscany's current approach of having >> some Tuscany specific attributes on the binding.jms element? >> >> ...ant >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, as a stepping stone. I was just presenting how I would approach it >> while trying to make space for anyone who might have a real urge to get on >> an look at the user provided extension point part. >> >> Simon >> >> >> >> Sounds good. >> >> ...ant >> >> >> >> I'm doing some refactoring of the jms binding to make some function more >> plugable for various runtime environments (eg running in Geronimo and using >> Geronimo JMS provider) so while i'm doing this i thought i'd make a start at >> adding support for some wireFormat based on whats been discussed in this >> thread. Mainly refactoring things like the current databinding and message >> processor support out into clear and separate peices so this should make it >> easier to plug in/replace the function when the wireFormat support gets >> added to the Tuscany core runtime. >> >> ...ant >> >> >> Sounds good ant. Am working on JMS tests and some initial infrastructure >> changes to demonstrate the wire format support at the moment but stuck with >> a very peculiar ant build problem atm so don't have anything to check in >> just yet. >> >> Simon >> >> >> Hi, I just checked in (r706620) some early experiments in representing >> wireFormat and operationSelection as interceptors on a binding chain. My >> first impression when trying to implement our thoughts from this thread and >> recorded at [1] is that it doesn't work very well. >> >> The JMS binding is a good motivator for this exercise primarily because >> the wire format and operation selection processing is relatively >> complicated. The reason that the wire based approach is not immediately >> effective is that the JMS binding simulates RPC behavior by initiating >> response messages. You can configure the JMS binding with a response >> destination and a wireFromat no doubt (no OASIS word on this but you can >> imagine it happening) and hence the processing of a response is not >> necessarily as simple as unwinding the stack on a chain of intercpetors. The >> interceptors may need to be different for requests and responses. >> >> Easy enough to make this happen. Just invent request interceptors and >> response interceptors and install the right ones. However it's starting to >> get complicated. >> >> To get a feel for what this means I have been experimenting with the >> service side of the JMS binding. I've created a new binding listener >> (RRBJMSBindingListener) that is only fired up if a wireFormat is found in >> the SCDL. This gives rise to wireFormat and operationSelection interceptors >> being installed on a binding wire. The binding wire is currently represented >> inside of RRBJMSBindingListener and in fact there are two. A request wire >> and a response wire. There is also a BindingInterceptor interface that >> allows the request and response processing to be called independently and >> which doesn't assume that the Interceptors are chained. >> >> The next thing I'm going to do is enable the JMSBytes wire format so I >> have two options to play with and then look at how the reference side should >> work. With this info we can look at whether this is going to fly and how >> this binding wire support should be factored. >> >> Simon >> >> [1] >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Request+Response+Binding >> > > Hey, thanks Raymond. Let me try and merge the two pieces together. > > Simon > Looks good Raymond I've done the initial merge (r707394). A couple of initial comments: - I notice that the InterceptorChain asserts that the operations are non-null but null is passed in in the binding chain case. I've commented out the assertions for now. - I've changed the RuntimeWireInvoker to be and invoker so that I can add it to the end of the binding chain on the service side. The runtime wire invoker needs refactoring as we promised to do ages ago, i.e. conversation, callback interceptors - The response path from the invcation chain to the binding chain is a bit unatural as the response object is taken out of the response message and I then (hackily) stuff it back in the request message. This set of invoke methods need refactoring. Still lots of other things to do. In the short term this is my list. - Create a JMS binding context to pass around in the message header to contain JMS message and session etc. (would be followed by other contexts, such as security) - Do a little bit of tidying on the response path from InvocationChain to BindingChain - Create the reference side interceptors for the jms binding and fix up the binding to place them on the binding chain and use it - Review all these new interceptors to see if the separation of function is correct - Create another jms binding wire format for comparison In the medium term I agree with your list of things to rationalize and I would add another; Endpoint and EndpointReference RuntimeWire and EndpointWire RuntimeWireInvoker The test I'm using for this is itest/jms-format. It's not in the main build yet. Regards Simon
