It seems that the image that I attached earlier was not properly attached.
Therefore I have attached it to the jira. Please refer [1] for more
information.

[1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12495083/POJOs.jpg

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Heshan Suriyaarachchi <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Devs,
>
> Airavata trunk contains XML Schemas for HostDescription,
> ApplicationDescription and ServiceDescription. XMLBeans is used to generate
> POJOs out of those XML Schemas. Although these POJOs are generated,
> according to current implementation, these are not used. Instead of using
> them, some POJOs named HostDescription, ApplicationDeploymentDescription,
> ServiceDescription are used. (A diagrammatic view of the class structure of
> theses POJOs are displayed in the attached diagram. I did not draw a class
> diagram for this. If it is required, I can send it later).
>
> These were done to overcome some limitations in the current schema. The
> main intention/s of this mail thread is to discuss how to improve the
> existing Schema or improve the hand written POJOs to overcome the
> limitations.
>
> A downside of this approach is that the XML Schema is not directly used
> within the codebase. Therefore if the Schema changes we might have to change
> the codebase. Bottom-line is that the POJOs are not in par with the XML
> Schema.
>
> I have attached a patch to the jira [1], in which HostDescription,
> ApplicationDescription and ServiceDescription are improved to use the
> generated XMLBeans.
>
> Following are some questions that I have.
> 1) Although there are setters() and getters() in the above mentioned(see
> the diagram) POJO classes, the setters are not used inside the Airavata
> codebase (except in some test cases). Why is that?
> 2) If you have a look at the diagram; there are GlobusHostDescription,
> ShellApplicationDeployment and GramApplicationDeployment. The XML Schema
> definitions inside the GFac does not mention of these and has no elements to
> support some attributes. So my question is, should we improve the existing
> Schema to support these or keep the POJOs as it is?
> 3) As you might see there is a Parameter class and it is having a set of
> subclasses (diagram). The schema does not mention of these. Should we
> incorporate these to the Schema or keep them as it is?
> 4) In the ApplicationDeploymentDescription there are methods called
> getInputDir(), getOutputDir(). Is it alright to assume the getWorkingDir()
> will return a unix based file path or is that assumption incorrect?
>
> Your feedback is appreciated.
>
> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-105
> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-106
>
> --
> Regards,
> Heshan Suriyaarachchi
>
> http://heshans.blogspot.com/
>



-- 
Regards,
Heshan Suriyaarachchi

http://heshans.blogspot.com/

Reply via email to