Hi, Venkat.
Thank you so much for staying late to fix the problem.
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Venkata Krishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-925) Complex properties not
supported
> Hi Raymond,
>
> I am in the process of fixing this and shall be done very
soon. Apologize
> to everybody for this mess up.
>
> - Venkat
>
> On 2/1/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found two issues with the commit.
>>
>> 1) The "core" cannot be compiled at more. There's a class
>> "org.apache.tuscany.core.databinding.xml.Node2Object" still references
a
>> class that was deleted in your checkin.
>>
>> public class Node2Object extends XMLType2JavaTransformer<Node> {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> 2) I'm not very sure if we should have a separate extension for the
>> JavaBeans databinding. Should we merge it into the core where we
already
>> have transformers dealing with XML parsing technologies.
>>
>> BTW, we also fix some checkstyle violations.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Venkata Krishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-925) Complex properties not
>> supported
>>
>>
>> > Hi Raymond,
>> >
>> > I have committed a JavaBeans databinding and have refactored
somethings
>> > that
>> > were related to this that I had added to the SPI earlier. I shall
add
>> > more
>> > transformers in later increments, looking at the Axis2 link you have
>> > provided.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > - Venkat
>> >
>> > On 1/30/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi, Venkat.
>> >>
>> >> Please see my comments inline.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Raymond
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Venkata Krishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> To: <[email protected]>
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:07 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-925) Complex properties not
>> >> supported
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Raymond,
>> >> >
>> >> > I have done the following: -
>> >> >
>> >> > - Created a JavaBeansDataBinding with basetype as
>> >> > java.lang.Objectand
>> >> > have
>> >> > included a DOMNode2JavaBean transformer into this binding. This
>> >> > tranformer
>> >> > has the xml to javabean transformation that I have done.
>> >>
>> >> We probably need to add more transformers. Some code in the Axis2
ADB
>> >> might
>> >> help:
>> >>
>> >>
>>
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/axis2/trunk/java/modules/adb/src/org/apache/axis2/databinding/utils/
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >> > - Extended the AbstractPropertyProcessor's method to look for
>> DataType
>> >> > annotations and then add the databinding name to the Property as
>> >> extension
>> >> > metadata.
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> > - I have added the JavaBeansDataBinding and the DOMNode2JavaBean
>> >> > transformer
>> >> > as system components to databinding.scdl of core.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here are some queries that I have. Please help me with some
>> >> > clarity.
>> >> > 1) Now that we have the JavaBeansDataBinding, can we move the
>> >> Node2Object
>> >> > and Object2Node out of org.apache.tuscany.core.databinding.xml.
>> >> > Infact,
>> >> > Node2Object might get to be replaced by DOMNode2JavaBean. Also,
can
>> >> > the
>> >> > related type mappers such as SimpleTypeMapper be moved over into
>> >> > this
>> >> new
>> >> > databinding. This sort of consolidation seems to be inevitable
>> >> > since
>> >> only
>> >> > one of the transformers can stay registered with the runtime and
>> >> > that
>> >> will
>> >> > be the one that is registered last.
>> >>
>> >> I think we should consider the simple types as special cases of java
>> >> beans.
>> >> It makes sense to me that we unify them and use it as the default
>> >> databinding in the java world.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Could you please help me understand the difference between
>> physical
>> >> and
>> >> > logical types in the DataType. Specifically in the context of
>> >> > implementations of DataBindings, I am getting the understanding
>> >> > that,
>> >> for
>> >> > a
>> >> > DataBinding to handle a specific DataType the physical type of the
>> >> > DataType
>> >> > must be compatible (say assignable) with the basetype of the
>> >> DataBinding.
>> >> > Is this understanding right?
>> >>
>> >> I think Jeremy has already explained this. Please see
>> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13192.html.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If this is right, then I have an issue understanding the
>> implementation
>> >> of
>> >> > the 'introspect' method of the DataBindingExtension class. I have
>> >> > commented
>> >> > as "svkrish:" within the following snippet regarding my question.
>> >> >
>> >> > public DataType introspect(Class<?> javaType) {
>> >> > if (baseType == null || javaType == null) {
>> >> > return null;))
>> >> > }
>> >> > if (baseType.isAssignableFrom(javaType)) {
>> >> > //svkrish : should this not be...
>> >> > //...new DataType<Class>(name, baseType, javaType);
>> >> > return new DataType<Class>(name, javaType, baseType);
>> >> > } else {
>> >> > return null;
>> >> > }
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for helping all the way :)
>> >> >
>> >> > - Venkat
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 1/29/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi, Venkat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please see my comments below.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> Raymond
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: "Venkata Krishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> To: <[email protected]>
>> >> >> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:36 AM
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-925) Complex properties
not
>> >> >> supported
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Hi Raymond,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I looked up the current implementation and have some queries
>> >> regarding
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > suggestions. Please help me with some clarifications inline.
>> >> >> > Thanks
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - Venkat
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On 1/26/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hi, Venkat.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I think we should reorganize the code to match what we
>> >> >> >> envisioned
>> >> >> before.
>> >> >> >> Here's the basic idea:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 1) The property values are loaded as DOM objects by the
runtime
>> >> during
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> loading phase
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is already in place, isn't it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, we already have this feature.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2) The component implementations express their requirements for
>> the
>> >> >> > property
>> >> >> >> values using DataType. For java component, this can be
achieved
>> by
>> >> >> >> annotating the property with @DataType. This becomes
extensions
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> >> >> componentType.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > 3) The property injector will transform the property value from
>> DOM
>> >> to
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> target data type (for example, SDO, JAXB, JavaBeans, etc).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I understand these two and I guess you have already put things
in
>> >> place
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> > some extent in PropertyObjectFactoryImpl.ObjectFactoryImplclass
.
>> >> >> > Just
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > I have now enabled the target databinding to be picked up from
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > annotations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes. We need to figure out the databinding from the property
>> >> declaration
>> >> >> (w/
>> >> >> optional @DataType annotation).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For the properties are modeled as JavaBeans, we can do the
>> >> >> > following:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 1) Contribute a Transformer which can convert data from DOM
Node
>> to
>> >> >> >> JavaBeans using the algorithm you wrote.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I thought the Node2Object transformer was for this purpose and
>> hence
>> >> >> > extended it further to support complex types. Am I missing
>> >> >> > something
>> >> >> here
>> >> >> > ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Object is a bit misleading:-). My intention is to formally define
>> the
>> >> >> Java
>> >> >> databinding.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2) By default, the java properties uses JavaDataBinding which
>> >> supports
>> >> >> >> simple types and JavaBeans.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > From the existing code, I suppose this is taken care of by the
>> fact
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > when a property has no target databinding mentioned then it
>> defaults
>> >> to
>> >> >> '
>> >> >> > java.lang.Object'. Again you had already put this in place in
>> >> >> > PropertyObjectFactoryImpl.ObjectFactoryImpl. Isn't this
enough?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I have now updated the AbstractPropertyProcessor to pick up
>> DataType
>> >> >> > annotations and fill the databinding name as extensions to
>> component
>> >> >> > properties.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You might want to add a DataType field to the Property model?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 3) Update the PropertyInjector (if needed) to use Meditor to
>> >> transform
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> data before injection.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I suppose this is also in place with the Mediator being invoked
>> >> >> > in
>> >> the
>> >> >> > 'getInstance' method of the
>> >> >> > PropertyObjectFactoryImpl.ObjectFactoryImplclass. The
>> FieldInjector
>> >> >> > and MethodInjector call this 'getInstance' method.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, I assume so. We probably just have to make the final kick
:-)
>> to
>> >> >> complete this feature.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > So in summary, in all of this I've just about had to add code
in
>> >> >> > AbstractPropertyProcessor to ensure that databindings specified
>> >> around
>> >> >> > properties as annotations are picked up. For the physical and
>> >> logical
>> >> >> > types
>> >> >> > for the DataType associated with a property, I am retaining the
>> >> >> > JavaType
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > the property concerned.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Please let me know if I am missing something here. Thanks.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >> >> Raymond
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> >> From: "Venkatakrishnan (JIRA)" <[email protected]>
>> >> >> >> To: <[email protected]>
>> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:25 AM
>> >> >> >> Subject: [jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-925) Complex properties
not
>> >> >> supported
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > [
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12467506
>> >> >> ]
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Venkatakrishnan commented on TUSCANY-925:
>> >> >> >> > -----------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > HI,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > A first cut support of Complex Properties has been committed
-
>> >> >> >> r499915. I
>> >> >> >> > have also extended the itest for PropertyTesting.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This implementation uses the basic JavaBeans naming
>> >> >> >> > conventions
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> map
>> >> >> >> > properties defined as xml data to java object data. I'd
like
>> to
>> >> >> extend
>> >> >> >> > this mapping further to leverage the support from various
>> >> >> databindings
>> >> >> >> > after some discussions with the community.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I also intend to run thro the more current version of the
>> specs.
>> >> and
>> >> >> >> sync
>> >> >> >> > up this implementation as futher steps.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Please let me know your feedback on this implementation.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Thanks
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > - Venkat
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Complex properties not supported
>> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Key: TUSCANY-925
>> >> >> >> >> URL:
>> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-925
>> >> >> >> >> Project: Tuscany
>> >> >> >> >> Issue Type: Bug
>> >> >> >> >> Components: Java SCA Core
>> >> >> >> >> Reporter: Brent Daniel
>> >> >> >> >> Assigned To: Venkatakrishnan
>> >> >> >> >> Fix For: Java-SCA-M3
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> This may be intented to be covered in TUSCANY-773, but it
was
>> >> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> >> clear
>> >> >> >> >> to me. Complex properties are currently not supported by
the
>> >> >> >> >> tuscany
>> >> >> >> >> runtime.
>> >> >> >> >> Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Complex
>> property
>> >> is
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> >> supported.
>> >> >> >> >> at
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
org.apache.tuscany.core.property.SimplePropertyObjectFactory.getInstance(
>> >> >> >> SimplePropertyObjectFactory.java:56)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> > This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>> >> >> >> > -
>> >> >> >> > You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue
>> online.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> > 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]
