My use case is as below, please give your comment/a better approach if I am doing something wrong.
I have 3 rxts called, provider, endpoint, rule. - provider can have multiple endpoints. - endpoint can have multiple rules. Flow is like this. First a provider named "provider1" is created. Then "endpoint1" is created. When an endpoint is created, we specify who is the provider of that endpoint. Then, it will be stored under provider1. Then "rule1" is created. When rule is created, we specify what is the endpoint of that rule. Then, rule will be stored under endpoint1. Then, I want to get all rules under provider1. There is not a direct way to get that information except iterating through all endpoints under provider1. Hence I wanted to create an association between provider1 and rules under endpoint1(automatically when the rule1, rule2.. are created). Then, I can get all rules of provider1 by getting those associations. This cannot be done without specifying relative paths as both provider and endpoint values are dynamic for a rule. As I am using the registry WS API, iterating through all endpoints would be inefficient too. In that case, I preferred to have an automatic association among provider and rules. interface ├── provider1 │ ├── endpoint1 │ │ ├── rule1 │ │ ├── rule2 │ │ └── rule3 │ ├── endpoint2 │ │ ├── rule4 │ │ └── rule6 │ └── endpoint3 ├── provider2 └── provider3 On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Senaka Fernando <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ruchira, > > No we don't support relative paths. As we always understood, it is always > possible to normalize the relative path into a full-path, since you are in > fact specifying the full-path in the RXT. For example, in this case, it > would be /providers/provider.xml (if providers reside inside > /_system/governance. I don't think there is a use-case for supporting this. > > Thanks, > Senaka. > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Ruchira, >> >> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Ruchira Wageesha <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Is there a particular reason for $subject? If we allow it, then >>> automatic association creation would be more useful. i.e. we can specify >>> paths like, >>> >>> <association type="uses" >>> target="@{overview_provider}/../../providers/provider.xml"/> >>> >> >> AFAIK, target or source which can be specialized here should be a >> complete path. So there won't be any calculation when adding the >> association. That's why these are not allowed. >> For me its a good to have one, but what is the actual use case of this >> improvement? >> >> thanks >> Eranda >> >> * >> * >> >> > > > -- > *Senaka Fernando* > Member - Integration Technologies Management Committee; > Technical Lead; WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com* > Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://apache.org > > E-mail: senaka AT wso2.com > **P: +1 408 754 7388; ext: 51736*; *M: +94 77 322 1818 > Linked-In: http://linkedin.com/in/senakafernando > > *Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > -- *Ruchira Wageesha Senior Software Engineer & Member, Management Committee, Development Technologies* *WSO2 Inc. - lean . enterprise . middleware | wso2.com* * email: [email protected], blog: ruchirawageesha.blogspot.com, mobile: +94 77 5493444*
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
