I agree we really need to make it easier to run this in an IDE like eclipse
so a plugin to start the runtime would be handy. Something like the eclipse
support for embedded Tomcat would be good. Its likely to be dependent on all
the classloader, distribution and extension packaging stuff being
Here's the IRC log from yesterdays scheduled chat. The main things talked
about were:
1) Status of the Axis2 Web services support - thats moved to latest Axis2
snapshots, basic WS reference going, service still needs work, issues with
classloading, databinding, and hooking into the ServletHost
Implement ServletHost and get the Axis2 WS binding using it
---
Key: TUSCANY-622
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-622
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: New Feature
This looks a reasonable approach. The runtime will need to call the
extension to load it's part of the model. So ModelLoader will need to know
which library to call for a particular implementation type. The mechanism
should be the same for all implementation types so the existing
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-582?page=comments#action_12428089
]
Kelvin Goodson commented on TUSCANY-582:
I have checked this patch and there is an issue
... without the patch applied the testcase gives
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-87?page=all ]
Rick Rineholt updated TUSCANY-87:
-
Priority: Critical (was: Major)
This has become critical if we are to have webservice that do more than just
pass OM Elements.
Support pluggable data
On 8/15/06, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This looks a reasonable approach. The runtime will need to call the
extension to load it's part of the model. So ModelLoader will need to know
which library to call for a particular implementation type. The mechanism
should be the same for all
Jervis,
Few thoughts ...
I think flexibility and ease of use is important in terms of switching
between bindings, not just two implementations of the same transport
(for example axis and XFire for WS binding), but also between two
different transports (WS and JMS for example). With one of the
Hi,
- I will add it to the SCDL in the binding.rmi
- The exception seems to be related to the Axis2 Binding jar that gets
packed into the extension directory of a standalone distribution. I removed
it for now, and have things working all right.
- I have not included a testcase that exposes a
Ant,
Something like the eclipse support for embedded Tomcat would be good.
That is what I was thinking about. Also on a longer term we could look
at more comprehensive support for service composition by using wizards
for defining SCDLs by importing bindings, implementations etc fro
different
Hi Venkat,
A couple of quick comments:
- this is probably teaching you to suck eggs...but if you are going to send
in a patch for reformatting the code could you do that as a separate patch
with no other changes. If you mix reformatting and code changes in a single
patch it makes it real hard
No problem, Jim. I'm busy working on Muse right now, so it'll probably
be a couple of days before I can get back to it anyway.
Cheers,
Joel
-Original Message-
From: Jim Marino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:35 PM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-577?page=all ]
Pete Robbins closed TUSCANY-577.
Closed at request of Kelvin
XSDHelperImpl.java compilation with JDK 1.4.2 - fails
-
Key:
I just noticed a piece of code that implements Reference and it just
threw away any exceptions it received. Wanting to fix it I noticed that
the SPI interface did not list any exceptions. What is is the strategy
here? Should we be throwing unchecked exceptions in these cases? I
was
Hi Nicole,
I'm working with the current open code line, although things have been a
bit active since I submitted this work. I hope it still compiles!
As for your other questions (about missing bundles), here're the
manifests:
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Bundle-ManifestVersion: 2
Bundle-Name:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-618?page=all ]
Kevin Williams closed TUSCANY-618.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Verified with revision: 431596
DAS Modular Distribution
Key: TUSCANY-618
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
patch the launcher so it doesn't insist in being run from a jar file
Do you know why the launcher insists of being loaded from a JAR file?
So it can find the installation directory so set up the RuntimeInfo
so that the extension
Rather hack the code you can just set the tuscany.installDir system
property
Thanks Jeremy, I did see the usage of tuscany.installDir. My question
was in the absence of the system property, does the runtime always need
to resolve the extensions directory relative to the directory from which
the
On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Rather hack the code you can just set the tuscany.installDir
system
property
Thanks Jeremy, I did see the usage of tuscany.installDir. My question
was in the absence of the system property, does the runtime always
need
to resolve the
Hey David,
Trying to run the samples on the current source.
David Wheeler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was working on DAS distribution and notices various components use various
standards for groupId and artifactId (e.g DAS use different grouping the
SDO, etc)
I was just wondering if we have any guidelines on how to group sub-projects
by groupId and artifcatId in POM files ?
--
On Aug 15, 2006, at 7:39 AM, Kapish Aggarwal wrote:
Hey David,
Trying to run the samples on the current source.
I don't know about Eclipse but this is how I do it in IDEA:
* Install the standalone distribution of Tuscany to /tmp/foo
* Create a junit configuration for e.g. CalculatorTestCase
On Aug 15, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
I was working on DAS distribution and notices various components
use various
standards for groupId and artifactId (e.g DAS use different
grouping the
SDO, etc)
I was just wondering if we have any guidelines on how to group sub-
projects
As long as your SCDL files are in the right location, SCATestCase can
be run with the following JVM setting from inside an IDE - some may
find it easier than having to remote debug:
-Dtuscany.installDir=/tmp
Jim
On Aug 15, 2006, at 1:09 AM, ant elder wrote:
I agree we really need to make
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-611?page=all ]
Venkatakrishnan updated TUSCANY-611:
Attachment: Tuscany-RMI-Binding-Formatted-Aug-15-1.diff
Hi,
This is a patch that has the code formated as per the tuscany codestyle.
Thanks
-
On Aug 15, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Rick wrote:
I just noticed a piece of code that implements Reference and it
just threw away any exceptions it received. Wanting to fix it I
noticed that the SPI interface did not list any exceptions. What
is is the strategy here? Should we be throwing
DAS Samples modular distribution
Key: TUSCANY-623
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-623
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: New Feature
Components: Java DAS Samples
Affects Versions:
On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Rather hack the code you can just set the tuscany.installDir
system
property
Thanks Jeremy, I did see the usage of tuscany.installDir. My question
was in the absence of the system property, does the runtime always
need
to resolve the
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-623?page=all ]
Luciano Resende updated TUSCANY-623:
Attachment: lresende.das-samples.distribution.20060815.zip
patch in zip format containing das samples modular distribution. this should go
under java
Yes, my suggestion was going to be to the SDO groupId to be changed to
org.apache.tuscany.sdo... but i don't think it's a big deal, I was just
curious if there was any guidelines or not...
On 8/15/06, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 15, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-611?page=all ]
Venkatakrishnan updated TUSCANY-611:
Attachment: Tuscany-RMI-Binding-Updated-Aug-15-2.diff
Tuscany-SCA-SPI-Aug-15.diff
Hi
Here is an update to the RMI Binding. This
Edward Slattery wrote:
[snip]
In the case of SDO, it was just the logical pattern for implementation
hiding.
The implementation was fine up to the point where we wanted to start
thinking about
the static SDO api, and were proposing to allow code generators to
inherit
from some DataObject base
On Aug 15, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Venkatakrishnan (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-611?page=all ]
Venkatakrishnan updated TUSCANY-611:
Attachment: Tuscany-RMI-Binding-Updated-Aug-15-2.diff
Pete Robbins wrote:
of course this supposes that all the schema and wsdl is local. We
probably
need to support the case where the wsdl is remote e.g.
http://mySite/flobber.wsdl
Cheers,
Here's a simple way to support remote WSDLs, no need to invent our own
config file for that. As a user you
Im not saying that inheritance wouldnt work in SCA - it probably would.
The issue we ran into with SDO was that we have built a system in which the
class which is visible to the user of the library is DataObject, they can
only work with that API, and dont know about DataObjectImpls. What they
Pete Robbins wrote:
Actually the wsdl/xsd are loaded for a particular composite so if
there were
more say 2 .composites in a folder and 3 xsds we would load all 3 xsds
twice, once for each composite.
Concrete scenarios will help us understand this better, but I'm starting
to think that WSDLs
As defined by the SCA spec, we are allowed to add extensions to the SCDL model,
for example, we can add myExtension to a composite as illustrated below.
composite ...
ns1:myExtension xmlns:ns1=http://my.extension/;
...
/ns1:myExtension
/composite
With the current extensibility
It doesn't matter which logging framework you pick, it will be the
wrong one :-)
What I mean is that, as a library, you don't get to pick which
logging framework the application that is using you chose. This
provides a problem where log messages from the library may end up
routed
On Aug 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
As defined by the SCA spec, we are allowed to add extensions to the
SCDL model, for example, we can add myExtension to a composite
as illustrated below.
composite ...
ns1:myExtension xmlns:ns1=http://my.extension/;
...
so do you think that wsdl and shema should be loaded on a per system
basis, i.e. we load all .wsdl and .xsd in either the root directory or any
we find from the root down?
On 15/08/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pete Robbins wrote:
Actually the wsdl/xsd are loaded for
On 15/08/06, Edward Slattery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im not saying that inheritance wouldnt work in SCA - it probably would.
I'm saying it wouldn't work ;-)
As the spec stands you get an INSTANCE of ComponentContext returned from
getCurrent(). So we either us no inheritance and just code
Pete Robbins wrote:
so do you think that wsdl and shema should be loaded on a per system
basis, i.e. we load all .wsdl and .xsd in either the root directory or
any
we find from the root down?
Yes :)
--
Jean-Sebastien
-
Replace using ConfigFactoryImpl.eINSTANCE with ConfigFactory.INSTANCE
-
Key: TUSCANY-624
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-624
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type:
On Aug 15, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
I don't think we're mixing the model and runtime here.
MyExtensionDefinition is the model object, which is the result of
the load. Now I need to access the corresponding runtime
metatdata MyExtension which is supposed to be built from
OK! let's do it then. We'll probably need to think what the getDataFactory()
method of ComponentContext/CompositeContext returns. We may want a separate
instance of the datafactory for each composite so we load all the wsdl/xsd
into a DataFactory which we clone for each composite. First step is
On 15/08/06, Edward Slattery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This leads to a question which should be asked.
If the MyDataObject contains a DataObject, and all typesafe calls such as
getName() are in fact delegated via containedobject-getString(name)...
what has type safety actually gained us? We
Hi Jeremy
What you guys did for SCA, is that something that could be used across
other components on the project (e.g.: SDO/DAS) ? Or is something specific
to SCA ? Could you point us where in the code to look for that ?
- Luciano
On 8/15/06, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It
I'm not sure you would want to use the entire thing as is since it
makes use of the IoC engine. I would maybe look at the interfaces in
org.apache.tuscany.spi.monitor and see if you can use those,
providing your own mechanism for injecting a monitor into various
classes. There was also a
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-582?page=comments#action_12428195
]
Brian Murray commented on TUSCANY-582:
--
Kelvin,
Thank you for looking at this patch and test case.
I tested it on my machine and it ran correctly (both
OK, so if we dont deal with exception hiding, the two are:
Employee employee = someSDOmethod_returningMyTypesafeDO();
cout employee-getName() endl;
DataObjectPtr employee = someSDOmethod_returningAnSDO();
cout employee-getString(name) endl;
..so Im not sure that type safety really
On 15/08/06, Edward Slattery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so if we dont deal with exception hiding, the two are:
Employee employee = someSDOmethod_returningMyTypesafeDO();
cout employee-getName() endl;
DataObjectPtr employee = someSDOmethod_returningAnSDO();
if (employee)
{
cout
On Aug 14, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
For TUSCANY-619 I am going to move some of the function currently
in core into separate modules so that we can get the classloader
isolation right.
The goal here is to break the modules down into four categories:
1) core runtime (spi,
On 8/15/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Borley wrote:
Hi All,
I've been thinking a bit more about how we could do extensions.
Specifically, I've been working through what would be needed to add a
new
component language binding in to Tuscany. I'm basing this on
One of the composite reference scenarios outlined by Jeremy has a local wire
between the Component and the Reference, and an external wire from the
CompositeComponent to a sibling Component or Reference (aka the uncle). For
instance:
composite xmlns=http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0;
Thanks Jeremy.
That was indeed a long email and also very informative. I take your point
that the components should be testable in isolation without needing an SCA
runtime to be available. The objective of unit testing a component is to
excercise all the code paths within the component
On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:28 PM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Thanks Jeremy.
That was indeed a long email and also very informative. I take your
point that the components should be testable in isolation without
needing an SCA runtime to be available. The objective of unit
testing a component
Hi,
Here's an example I'm from.
1) I use import.sdo to configure the SDO type system for a composite. The
SDOImportLoader is added to deal with this SCDL extensibility element.
During load phase, it will populate a SDO TypeHelper instance.
2) For references or services with web service
Hi,
I had an IRC chat with Jeremy on this topic, please see the transcript
attached below.
Here's a summary.
1) SCDL extensions (maybe vendor-specific) can contribute extra context (for
example, SDO TypeHelper) to Tuscany runtime components.
2) We only support a fixed type of builders
Hi,
First, there're some syntax issues for the SCDL. Sorry for being picky here,
just don't want to mislead some folks.
1) By the SCA spec 0.95 draft, I don't think you can nest composite
elements inside a composite. I guess you meant to implement a component
using another composite here.
Hi Raymond,
I believe Frank Budinsky may have some design in mind. He's on vacation this
week. Should be back next week.
Although current Java SDO implementation allows you to create multiple
instances of TypeHelper from SDOUtil for different scopes. They basically
share the same
On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I had an IRC chat with Jeremy on this topic, please see the
transcript attached below.
Here's a summary.
1) SCDL extensions (maybe vendor-specific) can contribute extra
context (for example, SDO TypeHelper) to Tuscany runtime
On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
Do you think it is better to key things off the definition class
or just run through all of the extension builders and have them
decide if they want to process something or not (or the registry
could automate the decision). Doing this would
Hi,
I am interested in contributing REST bindings to Tuscany.
Can I go ahead with this? I have started some ground work in this regard.
Please do let me know your thoughts on this.
regards
Sreelatha
-
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen
Sure that would be appreciated.
Jim
On Aug 15, 2006, at 8:56 PM, Sreelatha S wrote:
Hi,
I am interested in contributing REST bindings to Tuscany.
Can I go ahead with this? I have started some ground work in this
regard.
Please do let me know your thoughts on this.
regards
Hi,
I am following the chapter in this book (http://producingoss.com/) that
explains how to create an effective website, pages 22-25. It suggests that a
good website provides the following information upfront
1) A clear mission statement
2) States whether this open source is free or not and what
Hi Jim,
I found ServletHost under org.apache.tuscany.spi.host and thought it to be a
good place to add RMIHost.
I have added the interface RMIHost which is the interface the bindings will
use to register and look up RMI services. With some initial thoughts I also
put in a RMIHostAdmin
66 matches
Mail list logo
