On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mike Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
> ant elder wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> So a long way of saying +1 to creating a new and separate SCAClient. >>> Two thoughts... >>> >>> - a first step could just be to interact with a local node and note >>> any restrictions >> >> Lots of interesting things said in the thread, to move things along in >> r772115 I've created a separate client module and updated to use that. >> A testcase using this now looks like: >> >> public class SCAClientTestCase extends TestCase { >> >> private Node node; >> >> �...@override >> protected void setUp() throws Exception { >> node = NodeFactory.newInstance().createNode(); >> node.start(); >> } >> >> public void testInvoke() throws Exception { >> HelloworldService service = >> SCAClientFactory.newInstance().getService(HelloworldService.class, >> "HelloworldComponent", URI.create("default")); >> assertEquals("Hello petra", service.sayHello("petra")); >> } >> >> �...@override >> protected void tearDown() throws Exception { >> node.stop(); >> } >> >> } >> >> One thing to note is that currently the Tuscany Node has no mention of >> a domain URI so this just works using the Node name as the domain uri. >> >> ...ant >> > Ant, > > I am happy and supportive of the creation of the SCAClient. > > However, I am not happy with some aspects of the current design and I would > like to see them changed. > > I am most surprised to find references to SCAClient turning up in NodeImpl > class. I don't think that this is the right design. > > I can appreciate that SCAClient may need access to information which is > currently held in NodeImpl. However, I think that the right design is for > NodeImpl to have a new interface to provide access to this information, > which SCAClient and others can call when required. One big reason for this > is that in the eventual design of SCAClient, the client is likely to be > running remotely from the Node. The idea of NodeImpl feeding the necessary > metadata to the SCAClient implementation "under the covers" just isn't going > to fly. > > So I think that adding the new interface to NodeImpl now and then working on > a design for remoting is likely to be the right approach. > > > Yours, Mike. > I had a chat with Mike about what to do to improve this and we have a way that will help for now while we don't have a more comprehensive approach that works when we've support for distributed domains and clients remote from the nodes. I'll commit a strawman and post back here with details when thats in. ...ant
