Simon and Daniel, Wouldn't it be easier to use a process engine such as JBPM or another bpel engine such as apache ode? They are made for this type of work - parallel execution, wait, fork, join, etc.
Another question: - Are there plans in tuscany project to support JBMP process executions? That is to link JBPM actions to sca components? JBMP unlike unlike other pure bpel engines can compose it process not only out of wsdl based web services but out of java classes as well. Regards, Radu Marian CRM Services Architecture Team Bank of America, Charlotte NC (980) 387-6233 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:59 AM To: tuscany-user@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: How to use references using multiplicity="1..n" with binding.ws or binding.rmi Hi Daniel A few days ago I raised the issue of fixing the API that is causing you these problems ( http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg31110.html). I've had one positive response to it so no great raft of opposition so I'll double check that people are OK and hope to put a fix in. Re. your specific scenario I've made a few comments below. Thinking aloud really so I may be slightly off target. snip... > Yes, this is exactly what I want to achieve. The scope of the > Controller is COMPOSITE. You could split the controller into two halves. Controller - decides what to do and is COMPOSITE scoped Dispatcher - owns the collection of references to crawlers and is STATELESS For each search that the Controller wants to perform it calls through to a Dispatcher (over the local SCA binding). This fires up a new instance of the Dispatcher, with a new set of proxies, and the Dispatcher is free to hold a conversation with the appropriate Crawler through an injected proxy. This removes the need to retrieve the proxy from the component context. > The idea is that a Controller has 1..n references to concrete > Crawlers, e.g. a FilesystemCrawler and a WebCrawler. > The Controller initiates crawls of Datasources (e.g. C:\folder or > http://someserver.org) and receives the crawled objects from the > Crawler and processes them. It should be possible to crawl multiple > Datasources with the same Crawler instance in parallel. In the > Controller there is a seperate thread for each crawled datasource > (programmed manually). On the Crawler side one needs something similar > (either sepereate threads or multiple instances) and for simplicity I > wanted to make use of SCA Conversations to take care of this. Am I > mis-using the Conversation feature ? Conversations would be able to do this for you but you would use conversational semantics if you really wanted to hold a conversation with the crawler, i.e. identify the same context over a series of separate invocations. An example of this kind of conversation would be if you wanted to start the crawler and then come back later and ask for the results so far. You could employ callabacks if you wanted the crawler to report progress back to the controlled rather than bing polled. The same issue arises though that you need to be able to get hold of a service reference and set an id (either conversation or callback) on it. You could go with a stateless crawler without conversations or callbacks. This would mean that the controller would have to block on the thread for that crawler until the crawl has been completed. I can imagine that this is not desirable if you have crawlers running in a distributed fashion for performance reasons. > > > > (the real answer of course is for us to fix the JIRA;-) > Well, of course this would be ideal, but I need a solution (or at > least a workaround) for now. Implementing my own conversation handling > seems to be lots of overhead if the Jira is fixed somtime. > > > > Bye, > Daniel >
