On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM, indika kumara <indika.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> More thoughts on the use of indirect endpoints. Just my personal view ... > > I think it is a rare usecase that a user wants to use the same endpoint > instance in two different groups. It is like calling the same service from > different endpoint groups. > > What he really wants is to improve the readability, maintainability and > reuse of the synapse.xml. It is the same as a Java method (or any other) > with a lot of codes. We usually refactor such a method by groping code into > a set of methods. If we want to reuse a method (any other) across classes, > then we parameterized the method (Here I am referring to the capabilty of > passing parameters or arguments). The capability of parameterization for a > language construct is powerful and allow a maximum reuse. > > Defining an endpoint in-lined with all details such as error handing, etc > is equal to a make the code inside a method large. It is possible to become > many information redundant except the endpoint URI. A current indirect > endpoint can only support improving readability and maintainability. But, it > can not support true reuse (avoiding redundant information, reuse across > endpoints). A parameterized endpoint can support both. For instance, an > endpoint definition with a URI which is given as a parameter and an indirect > endpoint refer such as endpoint with the name of the EP and the URI as a > parameter. > I think we already support this with the DefaultEndpoint. Thanks, Hiranya > > ~ Indika > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:59 PM, indika kumara <indika.k...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> + 1 >> >> BTW, why do we use indirect endpoints? if it is for reuse then what are >> the reusable elements - an endpoint definition, an runtime endpoint instance >> or both? what kind of reuse an end user expects? >> >> If the child endpoint of ST_Quote_LB1 get inactive due to failures, should >> that cause to stop ST_Quote_FO1 working? if the the runtime instance is >> reused, then I believe It would happen. But, if we expect to reuse only the >> endpoint definition, it should not happen. And for the latter case, the >> switchoff of ST_Quote_LB1 (including its children) would not affect any >> other endpoint. So, if we expected the reuse of endpoint definition, then, >> the current implementation of the indirect endpoint is wrong. >> >> ~ Indika >> >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Miyuru Wanninayaka >> <miyur...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As current implementation of LoadBalance and FailOver endpoints, when we >>> turned off LB/FO endpoint from jconsole, what really happens is all child >>> endpoints of FO/LB endpoints gets switched off. I think this behavior is >>> wrong. Since FO/LB endpoint has a context, it's possible to keep status in >>> that context and handle in send() method of LB/OF endpoints without turning >>> off child endpoints. >>> >>> Also in shared indirect endpoint situations like this: >>> >>> <endpoint name="ST_Quote_LB1"> >>> <loadbalance >>> algorithm="org.apache.synapse.endpoints.algorithms.RoundRobin"> >>> <endpoint key="*SimpleStockQuoteService_EP*"/> >>> </loadbalance> >>> </endpoint> >>> <endpoint name="ST_Quote_FO1"> >>> <failover> >>> <endpoint key="*SimpleStockQuoteService_EP*"/> >>> </failover> >>> </endpoint> >>> <endpoint name="*SimpleStockQuoteService_EP*"> >>> <address uri=" >>> http://localhost:9000/services/SimpleStockQuoteService"/> >>> </endpoint> >>> >>> turning off ST_Quote_LB1 will cause ST_Quote_FO1 to stop working. >>> >>> Any ideas? >>> >>> -- >>> Miyuru Wanninayaka >>> Software Engineer - WSO2 Inc <http://wso2.com/>. >>> >> >> > -- Hiranya Jayathilaka Senior Software Engineer; WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org E-mail: hira...@wso2.com; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com
