Hi Raymond, I've checked in some changes in r589585 wherein the the java implementation runtime now adds an interceptor apply policies over implementations that specify it. I have deleted the earlier impl. where the invoker was wrapped to do this.
Thanks - Venkat On 10/21/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Raymond, > > Please see my comments inline. > > Also, now that you are with this, may I request your views on the problem > that I am facing with attaching intents and policysets on implementation > model instances. Presently, atleast for the JavaImplementation model > instances we reuse instances across components. i.e. assuming we have > CompA and CompB using the same java implementation, then the implementation > model instance that we create is just one. This is a bit of a problem when > CompA and CompB have different intents specified and the underlying > implementations must inherit that. Please see > http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg24574.html > > Thanks > > - Venkat > > On 10/20/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I checked in some code as the seed to jump start the transaction policy > > support in Tuscany. Please see more details at > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=586640&view=rev . > > > > By looking into the code we have today, I have a few questions. > > > > 1) > > > > org.apache.tuscany.sca.host.embedded.impl.ReallySmallRuntime.loadDomainDefinitions > > (SCADefinitionsDocumentProcessor) > > assuming we have only one " definitions.xml"? > > > Yes. From what I have understood from the Assembly specs this > definitions.xml is going to be one per SCA Domain. > > 2) Should the binding/implementation type contribute policy interceptors > > instead of wrapping the invoker? > > > I'd been a bit on cross-roads with this, especially when I recently did up > the support for policies in implementation types where I did end up wrapping > the invoker. I am also tilting heavily towards interceptors and will lookup > that. > > 3) META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.policy.PolicySetHandlers > > The syntax <qname>=<class> is not consistent with the other extension > > points. I propose that we use: <class>;qname=<qname>, for example, > > org.apache.tuscany.sca.policy.transaction.TransactionPolicyHandler > > ;qname={ > > http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0}TransactionPolicy<http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0%7DTransactionPolicy> > > > I just wanted to keep it like a simple properties file and did not foresee > more than this one setting. I am ok to move up to this format as we go > along. > > I'll post more questions as we evolve. > > > > Thanks, > > Raymond > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
