Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Hi,
The Assembly Specs and the PolicyFramework specs allows for intents
and policysets to be specified on Operations.
To implement this I'd expect that the Operation interface support
methods to hold a set of required intents and policysets. This also
seems in sync with the schema definition for Operation.
However in the existing code this has been modeled as an Intent
instance having a list of operations over which the intent could
apply. Similarly a PolicySet instance has a list of operations to
which the policyset applies. Is there any specific reason for
modeling it this way?
I am in progress with changes that change this to what I have
mentioned in the second paragraph of this mail. If I am heading in
the wrong direction, could somebody shout please.
Thanks
- Venkat
The "Intent -> operations" relationship was modeled like this intentionally.
Here's why:
If you're talking about o.a.t.interfacedef.Operation, then I don't think
it can hold intents. Operation represents a business method/operation on
a business interface, potentially used in multiple Services or
References... with different sets of intents.
The <operation> element in SCA assembly XML does not represent the
actual operation on the business interface, it is just the syntax used
to group the intents that apply to a given operation, within the context
of a particular service or reference.
So basically we need to represent the association:
a set of intents -> a set of operations in the context of a particular
service/reference
There's basically two ways to represent this:
a) In an intent, list the business operations that the intent applies to
or
b) Invent a new object representing an "operation used within the
context of a reference/service", pointing to the actual operation +
listing the intents
The assembly model being a logical model it does not have to follow the
convolutions of the particular XML syntax, and it seems to me that (a)
is more logical than (b). At least it'll allow us to easily find which
operations a particular intent (and the corresponding interceptors)
applies to.
Hope this helps.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
