Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: How can we insert a DataBindingInterceptor for the outbound
wire of a composite-level reference?
On Sep 22, 2006, at 12:01 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
With Jim's fix for the wiring, I can move further. But I have to make
the following changes to make the end-to-end successful.
1) Add a "setBindingServiceContract" and getBindingServiceContract () to
Reference and Service interfaces.
2) The binding builders can optionally contribute a
bindingServiceContract to the Reference/Service by calling
setBindingServiceContract(...)
3) The JDKWireService will check the existence of the
bindingServiceContract and use it for Service.inboundWire and
Reference.outboundWire. If no bindingServiceContract, then we assume the
bindingServiceContract is the same as the one from <interface.xxx>.
I thought it would use interface.xxx since the wire services generates
proxies given to SCA clients (e.g. components). The binding service
contract would be used by the target invoker to dispatch an invocation
and hence would have to perform a mapping from the operation specified by
interface.xxx.
You're right too. I think we're on the same page. Here the picture that
matches what I described.
... --- (inbound)--> (interface.contract) Reference ---(outbound)-->
(binding.contract) TargetInvoker
--- (inbound)--> (binding.contract) Service
(interface.contract) ---(outbound)--> ...
With the above the changes, I can now run the WebService interop test
case from Rick successfully (with some SCDL and dependency adjustments).
Do you think the changes I made is the right fix? If so, I can commit
them into SVN tomorrow.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Marino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: How can we insert a DataBindingInterceptor for the
outbound wire of a composite-level reference?
For some reason my isp bounced this...
Jim
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 21, 2006 2:52:59 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How can we insert a DataBindingInterceptor for the
outbound wire of a composite-level reference?
On Sep 21, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi, Jim.
I'm preparing the move now, basically refining the code and adding
more test cases.
For package names, I'm thinking of the following:
org.apache.tuscany.spi.databinding (DataBinding SPIs)
org.apache.tuscany.spi.databinding.extension (DataBinding related
base classes for extensibility)
org.apache.tuscany.core.databinding (Core DataBinding
implementations)
org.apache.tuscany.core.databinding.xml (Other simple databindings
and transformers, for DOM, StAX, SAX, I/O etc)
Just to be clear, I only think the base databinding framework should
go in core (I think that is what you have in mind) -e.g. JAXB,
Castor, SDO, etc. would still be service extensions.
BTW, we will need to add "idl/wsdl" as a dependency to the core for
the databinding part.
I guess we have to put that in right? It would be nice if we didn't
but it may be something that has to be done.
Jim
Sounds reasonable?
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Marino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: How can we insert a DataBindingInterceptor for the
outbound wire of a composite-level reference?
O.K. great. In the meantime, do you want to work on moving the
databinding framework pieces into core assuming no one objects?
Jim
On Sep 20, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi, Jim.
Thanks for the prompt response. I'll be waiting for the fix to
complete the databinding integration story. If I can help here,
please let me know.
What I meant "CompositeContext.locateService
(<compositeReferenceName>) " is to get a proxy against the
composite reference directly and invoke it instead of
going through a component reference (which is wired to the
composite reference). Basically, it is the case b) in the orginal
note.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Marino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: How can we insert a DataBindingInterceptor for the
outbound wire of a composite-level reference?
On Sep 19, 2006, at 11:45 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I raised a similar issue on this list before but I didn't get
any responses. When I debugged a test case from Rick today, I
found it was due to same problem.
Let's assume we have composite level reference with Axis2 web
service binding.
<reference name="RemoteInteropDocService">
<!-- interface.wsdl interface="http://soapinterop.org/
#wsdl.interface(DocTestPortType)"/ -->
<interface.java interface="org.soapinterop.DocTestPortType"/>
<binding.ws endpoint="http://soapinterop.org/ #wsdl.endpoint
(interopDocSvc/interopDocPort)" location="wsdl/interopdoc.wsdl"/>
</reference>
Physically, there are two service contracts involved for this
reference.
1) The interface declared in <interface.xxx>. I assume it's for
the inbound wiring. For example, you can have a reference at a
component being wired to this reference (
component.reference --> composite.reference).
2) The WSDL portType used by the <binding.ws>. It really defines
the contract for the outgoing request. With Axis2, AXIOM is the
databinding. If a portType is not declared for binding.ws, we
should derive it from the interface.xxx (Java2WSDL could be used
for interface.java).
We may have two cases (SC: ServiceContract):
a) component.reference (SC1) --> composite.reference (SC2) -- >
Axis2 web service (SC3)
b) composite.reference (SC2) --> Axis2 web service (SC3)
(CompositeContext.locateService(<compositeReferenceName>) is
used to make the invocation)
In case a), the DataBindingInterceptor will be added to the wire
(to be precise, SC1.outbound wire) if SC1 and SC2 require some
mappings.
But we don't have a way to add a DataBindingInterceptor between
SC2 and SC3. As a result, case b) is failing (Rick's test case).
I have tried to do this in the BindingBuilder but it doesn't
seem to be very straightforward with the following
observations.
1) Wires are created for Reference by the WireService after the
Reference instance is created by a builder.
2) No outbound wire is created for Reference.
3) WirePostProcessor is not triggered for case b).
One thing I can think of is to allow the builder to set an
optional outbound service contract for the Reference and the
WireService will create the outbound wire for Reference in this
case. And the TargetInvoker should be added to the outbound wire
instead of inbound wire. During connecting, the Connector will
trigger the WirePostProcessor to mediate the inbound wire and
outbound wire. Then we have a chance to add a
DataBindingInterceptor to mediate SC2 and SC3.
On the issue of the outbound wire added to a composite reference
you are right, there should be one. I spoke to Ignacio about this
since it touches on some of the callback and composite reference
work but since I've been out, he should have the latest on if
this was added in (I'm guessing not). If not, I'm sure either he
or I can look into doing that over the next day or so. In any
event, the only case I can think of where we need a mediation
"inside" a reference is when the interface is not compatible with
the binding WSDL.
One further question: what d you mean by
"CompositeContext.locateService(<compositeReferenceName>) is used
to make the invocation"?
Jim
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------
-- --- -
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------
-- -
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
