At the moment these interfaces are in the org.apache.tuscany.core
package. This package name is also used by core implementation code,
which is confusing.
Is it the intention to change the package name for these SPI interfaces
to something else to avoid confusion between SPIs and implementation?
For example, the SPIs could have a package name containing "spi".
I think it's inmportant to do this in order to clearly separate SPI
interfaces from implementation code.
Simon
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
We now get the java component and echo binding working with the
extension interfaces. Please see the calculator and echo-binding sample.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "Raymond Feng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Interfaces for implementation/binding extensions to provide
runtime behaviors
Hi,
I have updated the interfaces for extension developers and you can
find them at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/core-spi/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/core/.
Hopefully the javdoc is good enough for you to understand.
I also switched the CRUD implementation sample to this new set of
interfaces and you can play with the sample to see how the interfaces
are used.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/samples/implementation-crud/
There are few other classes you might be interested to see how the
runtime works:
org.apache.tuscany.host.embedded.impl.MiniRuntimeImpl: The mini
runtime that loads the contribution and add it to the SCA domain
org.apache.tuscany.core.runtime.RuntimeActivatorImpl: The base class
that bootstrap the runtime
org.apache.tuscany.core.runtime.DefaultCompositeActivator: The
replacement for DeployerImpl that activates a composite to the SCA domain
All the changes was checked in under rev 534302. Please note I added
the new things without changing much of the existing code so both
paths are working at the moment.
I'm porting the Java component type and EchoBinding sample over. They
are now half-way through.
BTW, Ant, I didn't have the chance to split the createInterceptor into
two methods, maybe you can help.
Please review and comment.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message ----- From: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Interfaces for implementation/binding extensions to
provide runtime behaviors
On 4/27/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I have checked in the first cut of interfaces for
implementation/binding
extensions to provide runtime behaviors. ([1] & [2]).
The Activator interfaces can be implemented to control the lifecycle of
components or reference/service bindings.
The Provider interfaces can be implemented to create corresponding
interceptor and get the effective interface contract for the
endpoint. I
was
thinking of naming them as XXXInvokerFactory but there are methods
in the
interfaces don't quite fit.
When we add an implementation or binding type to Tuscany, the
implementation
class of the Implementation/Binding model interface can optionally
implement
these interfaces to provide the logic for the runtime to drive the
interactions from reference to service.
Please review.
Thanks,
Raymond
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=533222
[2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=533238
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding all this without seeing
more code
showing how these will be used, so comments may have to wait till the
runtime uses them a bit more.
One comment, how about the XxxProvider interfaces have a
createCallbackInterceptor method instead of passing the boolean in on
the
createInterceptor method?
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
