Hi Ruchira, English can be deceiving, :-). Sorry, I meant to send it in this e-mail so that I can have a look.
Thanks, Senaka. On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Ruchira Wageesha <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Please share the storagePath element's values for these RXTs. >> > Not sure what did you mean? Do you want to have a look on "storagePath" > values or above can be achieved by sharing "storagePath" across 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 >> >> > > > -- > *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
