Hi Ruchira, Please share the storagePath element's values for these RXTs.
Thanks, Senaka. On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Ruchira Wageesha <[email protected]> wrote: > 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* > > -- *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
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
