Yang, see replies within.
Greg Dritschler
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am interested in knowing how Tuscany supports SCA Assembly Spec 1.0
section 1.8
1.8 SCA Definitions
2491 There are a variety of SCA artifacts which are generally useful
and which are not specific to a
2492 particular composite or a particular component. These shared
artifacts include intents, policy
2493 sets, bindings, binding type definitions and implementation type
definitions.
2494 All of these artifacts within an SCA Domain are defined in a
global, SCA Domain-wide file named
2495 definitions.xml. The definitions.xml file contains a definitions
element that conforms to the
2496 following pseudo-schema snippet:
2497 ?xml version=1.0 encoding=ASCII?
2498 !-- Composite schema snippet --
2499 definitions xmlns=http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0;
2500 targetNamespace=xs:anyURI
2501
2502 sca:intent/*
2503
2504 sca:policySet/*
2505
2506 sca:binding/*
2507
2508 sca:bindingType/*
2509
2510 sca:implementationType/*
2511
2512 /definitions
What interest me are:
1. on a high level, how many places Tuscany can honor definitions.xml?
e.g. definitions.xml is in a system class library, and/or
definitions.xml in a contribution that can be contributed to a SCA
domain by using
aEmbeddedSCADomain.getContributionService().contribute...
I remember seeing a thread of discussion, will appreciate a link to
the answers .
A contribution can include definitions.xml file(s) at any location.
Tuscany and Tuscany extensions also can provide definitions.xml files. The
manner of doing this has changed several times. The current way I believe
is to implement the SCADefinitionsProvider extension point.
2. I assume regardless how definitions.xml is introduced into a
domain, there is an aggregated view on the intents, policySets,
bindings, bindingTypes, implementationTypes supported for the system.
Is there some API/SPI somewhere to do a query and return the list?
SCADefinitions/SCADefinitionsImpl holds the lists but it is somewhat
internal to the builder at the moment.
3. What contents are supported for definitions.xml in Tuscany
I understand we can define intents and policySets in definitions.xml
today. How about binding , bindingType and implementationType.
bindingType and implementationType work too.
I
understand Tuscany has extension points to register binding types and
implementation types. I wonder if/how we plan to support using
definitions.xml for implementation type and binding type and how the
two will work together. E.g. if definitions.xml can introduce additional
binding type or
implementation type through contribution, it will mean the
implementation of the new bindingType or implementationType can be in
a contribution related classLibrary we can add and remove during the
lifecycle of a domain...
I would not expect a contribution to define a bindingType or an
implementationType. A Tuscany extension that provides the binding or
implementation functionality would do that. Note however that it is
completely optional. A bindingType or implementationType is required only
if the binding or implementation provides built-in intents. If the
binding or implementation doesn't provide any built-in intents, it does not
need to define a bindingType or implementationType as far as I understand.
Looking forward to some answers.
Yang.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
