Hi Ruchira, As discussed offline, there are two ways to support this,
1. A handler for the provider.xml, which will automatically create the association you need. 2. Another field like Endpoint --> Provider in the endpoint.rxt. Thanks, Senaka. On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Ruchira Wageesha <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Senaka, > > Here I am attaching my RXT files. Following is the hierarchy that > resources will be stored. Further, interface.xml(red) should have > associations with endpoint.xmls in red. > > services/ > └── interfaces > ├── traffic > │ └── 1.0.0 > │ ├── interface.xml > │ └── providers > │ ├── germany > │ │ ├── endpoints > │ │ │ ├── basic > │ │ │ │ └── endpoint.xml > │ │ │ └── privileged > │ │ │ └── endpoint.xml > │ │ └── provider.xml > │ └── italy > │ ├── endpoints > │ │ └── city > │ │ └── endpoint.xml > │ └── provider.xml > └── weather > └── 1.0.0 > ├── interface.xml > └── providers > ├── google > │ ├── endpoints > │ │ ├── asia > │ │ │ └── endpoint.xml > │ │ └── europe > │ │ └── endpoint.xml > │ └── provider.xml > └── yahoo > ├── endpoints > │ └── usa > │ └── endpoint.xml > └── provider.xml > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Senaka Fernando <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > *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
