Paul,
On 9/24/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My proposal would be to have an AbstractStartup that implements the id
(getID/setID) and have every startup implement the id tag. Then we can
simply get rid of the startup tag and just have any startup as a
top-level child of <definitions>
That would look the cleanest.
I agree, my only concern *now* is having arbitrary elements in the
definitions tag. (I know I came up with that idea *earlier*, but now I don't
like it, after your points on extendability) That is because having every
types of startups like <job>, <xyz> with mediators also on the top level
will screw up the configuration readability isn't it?
For example
<definition>
<job .../>
<paul'sJob ..../>
<myJob />
<log .../>
<send .... />
</definitions>
I am again saying that grouping startups is not the solution for this.
Thanks,
Ruwan
Paul
On 9/24/07, Ruwan Linton < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul,
I still do not agree to one single <startup> tag. One single startup tag
implies wrapping (grouping) all startups in to one tag right? We had
this
kind of a configuration earlier and dropped these wrapping elements for
the
simplicity and I just don't like grouping the elements in the
configuration.
Here is my point;
Say we have <job> now, and <xyz> in the future as startup impls, but id
and
may be tracing, statistics (may be in the future) like attributes are
common
to all startups not just to jobs (SimpleQuartzStartup) or even to xyz.
So it
is good to abstract out those common attributes to a higher abstraction
layer IMO, to *AbstractStartup*.
At the same time if we have multiple startups, it is good to have that
startup element with its common attributes in the top level so that the
configuration will be clean. This does not mean we should group all the
startup elements in to one single startup element, because we have
common
but unique attributes for each and every startup.
WDYT?
BTW: I have done the refactoring up to some extent and will modify that
as
per the discussion (changing the <job> to <onAlarm>).
Do we need to change the class names as well??? I prefer to change those
as
well to have the right transparency...
Thanks,
Ruwan
On 9/24/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok I agree - I've never been good at names :-)
I think there is one more issue. The "onAlarms" are the things that
should have names.
So the syntax should be
<startup>
<onAlarm id='blah' .../>
<onAlarm id='foo' ..../>
</startup>
There is no need for multiple <startup> tags that are named.
Finally, should we make it <onStartup> to match onAlarm?
Paul
On 9/24/07, Sanjiva Weerawarana < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So .. I think this is not right yet.
The problem is that we're using *two* very generic terms: "startup"
and
"job". I believe that with our current semantics, the prior means
"do
this
as you start up" and the latter means "execute a Java class at a
given
clock ala cron". Is that right?
What I suggest is that we keep <startup> but change <job> to
something
like this:
<onAlarm class="..">
<simpleTrigger ..> | <cronTrigger ..>
<other stuff>
</onAlarm>
I actually don't like simpleTrigger etc. - I'd prefer something
like:
<timer cron=..> and
<timer count=.. delay=..>
This way, its clear that <onAlarm> is simply a task executed upon
some
trigger. We currently only have timer triggers but we could later
have
different triggers too.
In the future if we want something other than an alarm triggered
task
executed at init time, then we can have new xml for that and just
have
it
execute. For example, I can see a <log> action being a useful
startup
thing .. log a message to some place when the system starts up? (I
did
say
in the future BTW!)
Sanjiva.
Ruwan Linton wrote:
After deeply looking in to Paul's code on the startup factory and
serialization, I thought of the syntax again with keeping Paul's
points
about the startup element on this thread in my mind, I think the
following configuration is clean and clear.
<definitions>
<startup id="startup1">
<job class="MessageInjector">
......
</job>
</ startup>
<startup id="startup-n">
<$ANY_TAG_REGISTERED_WITH_STARTUPFINDER ...../>
</startup>
</definitions>
(one startup per startup element and there can be number of
startups
in
the synapse def as in proxy definitions)
This syntax will add an id to startups so that we can control them
at
runtime (if needed) because there is an indexing mechanism. This
syntax
will be same as proxy syntax from the configuration point of view.
This also requires a certain amount of refactoring and I am ready
to
go
ahead with that.
Thanks,
Ruwan
On 9/21/07, *Ruwan Linton* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
+1 for the option [3] and I am happy to do the refactoring if
we
have decided to go with this option. (Indeed my original
proposal
was this)
BTW: Serializer does not seem to be working properly.. (When I
tried
to start synapse using a configuration with a startup job it
builds
the job correctly but does not serializes the job on
serializing
the
config (I will look in to this).
Thanks,
Ruwan
On 9/20/07, *Paul Fremantle* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I'm not sure everyone is clear - maybe its because I
haven't
yet
documented this :-)
There is a new type of extension point called a Startup
with a
Factory... just like Mediators.
Job is a type of Startup - with its own XML, just like a
mediator
defines its own XML.
So if we added another type of Startup then it would have
a
different
tagname. So at the moment we can have:
<startup>
<job....>...</job>
<asankha>
<scheduled to work 24x7x265>
</asankha>
</startup>
So there are three choices:
1) Keep a wrapper element for all "startups"
2) remove the flexibility to have different startups
3) Refactor the code so it can tell if its a startup or a
mediator
when it hits the tag QName and do the right thing for
each.
Paul
On 9/20/07, Asankha C. Perera < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> Well.. if we have other types of jobs.. can we do
something
like
>
> <definitions>
> ...
> <job class="x.y.z.Quartz"....>
> <job class=" a.b.c.Marble"....>
>
> ...
> </definitions>
>
> thanks
> asankha
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Do you envisage we will have other kinds of Startup or
should
we pull
> the pluggability for that?
>
> Paul
>
> On 9/20/07, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> wrote:
>
>
> Paul
>
> Opps.. nope.. the opposite of it..
>
> e.g.
> <definitions>
> ...
> <job....>*
> ....
> <proxy... >*
> ....
> </definitions>
>
> thanks
> asankha
>
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I'm not clear from your note, but I think you are
saying
there
should
> be a top level tag that holds the jobs:
>
> e.g.
>
> <definitions>
> <xxxxx>
> <job>...</job>
> </xxxxx>
> ...
>
> Is that what you meant?
>
> Paul
>
> On 9/20/07, Asankha C. Perera < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
> Paul / Ruwan
>
> However, I agree we could do it. Thoughts from others?
>
> Well.. when we finalized the config language syntax, we
had
a
top level
> "definitions" and then one or more "proxy", "sequence",
"endpoint" etc
> definitions. So I guess the "job" definitions should be
handled the same for
> consistency.
>
> asankha
>
>
> On 9/20/07, Ruwan Linton < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> For the moment the configuration for the jobs seems to
be
like
following;
>
> <definitions>
> <startup>
> <job ...../>*
> </startup>
> ......
> </definitions>
>
> The <startup> element is wrapping all the jobs. With
compared
to other
> elements in the configuration like <sequence>,
<endpoint>
and
all they are
> top level elements even mediators can appear in the top
level
in which case
> that collection is treated as the main sequence. So I
propose
to bring the
> <jobs> element to the top level as follows;
>
> <definitions>
> <registry ..../>?
> <proxy .../>*
> <sequence .../>*
> <endpoint ..../>*
> <job .../>*
> <localEntry .../>*
> (mediator)*
> </definitions>
>
> If we do have multiple types of jobs then we can let
the
FactoryFinder to
> handle that. Is there any particular reason that I am
missing
here? If not
> shall we bring these jobs to the top level before 1.1
release?
>
> Thanks,
> Ruwan
>
> --
> Ruwan Linton
> http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services
Platform"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
< http://www.wso2.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Ruwan Linton
http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
--
Ruwan Linton
http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation;
http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ruwan Linton
http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ruwan Linton
http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
