Hi Jervis,
Yea I think these are important (also thanks for jumping in and
helping port these!) Jeremy is working on the loader and bootstrap
so he is the best person t ask. I'm on vacation today but perhaps
tomorrow we can sync and I can see what I can do to help.
Jeremy, any pointers you can provide Jervis?
Jim
On Jun 21, 2006, at 3:14 AM, Liu, Jervis wrote:
Hi Jean-Sebastien,
I am currently working on porting Celtix binding based on the new
SPI. Jim checked in a brunch of skeleton code for Celtix binding
into sandbox early this week, what I am doing at the moment is
adding some unit tests for individual pieces such as Service
implementation, Reference implementation, loader, invoker etc, most
of them are to make sure things are working as expected on Celtix
side. What I have not figured out yet is how to write test to check
those components are loaded by Bootstrap and behave correctly in
Tuscany runtime. I have took a look at SPI unit test, there are
some tests there already, but I would like to see people adding
more tests cases to show how Reference, Service, loader, invoker
etc are initialized, loaded and how they work together in an end to
end workflow? Well, maybe this is not unit test anyway, but sth
close to this will be very helpful. Basically I have no problem to
write unit test to test internal functionalities of my extension
component, but I need to know how my extension components are
initialized(or injected), loaded and invoked by some higher level
components (Bootstrapping, tuscany container etc?) either by unit
test or an end-to-end simple demo.
Thanks,
Jervis
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Tuscany SPI interfaces
I'm trying to implement the sample ruby extension and running into
some
issues.
I'm implementing an AtomicComponentContext (with the code in the head
stream) and also trying the equivalent AtomicComponent with some of
the
code in the sandbox. I want to be able to implement my extension class
without having to depend on base Tuscany runtime implementation
classes,
so I'm just implementing the SPI interfaces.
Unless I missed something (and it's very possible since I don't
understand all the pieces yet) here's what I found:
- with the code in the head, my AtomicComponentContext needs to
implement 15 methods;
- with the code in the sandbox, I have to implement 25 methods.
And this is just one class, I'm not even implementing the builders or
invokers yet... I think that in both cases this is too much.
It looks like the experiment in the sandbox is attempting to provide a
simpler programming model for these extensions by hiding some of the
complexity in base implementation classes, but I think it will be
better
to define a set of independent interfaces and make some of them
optional. In other words if my extension does not wish to implement
one
of the interfaces, then it just doesn't need to, and the runtime
should
assume some default behavior, instead of forcing me to implement
all the
25 methods...
Another thought is to allow the contract to be implemented with
multiple
objects specialized in each aspect instead of one big object with 25
methods.
As I'm going through the implementation of the ruby component
implementation extension, I'm trying to come up with a short list of
requirements and methods that I think we really need to implement, and
with that list I'd like us to prototype simpler SPI interfaces. If
anybody is interested in helping, please feel free to jump in, it
would
really be great if we could do a binding extension in parallel, and
also
if the people who actually developed some of the existing extensions
could come up with the requirements they've seen in terms of SPI and
proposals to improve our extensibility story.
Thanks,
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
