On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I am on revision 634808. The ContributionServiceImpl has changed since
> then,
> and with the one that i have, it would lead through the CompositeProcessor
> instead of the CompositeDocumentProcessor. Hence the difference in
> exceptions..
>
> Also, dont you think that with the error that you got should throw an
> exception with schema validation, rather than just a warning?
>
> Hasan
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:36 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the good information. First up i am trying to verify
> > whether
> > > the schema validation works when we point to our schemas. Can you let
> me
> > > know what is a simple error that i can introduce so that i can verify
> > > this?
> > > I tried doing this to my composite file (In block red):
> > >
> > > <component name="MyServiceComponentNew">
> > > <implementation.java
> > class="mysca.test.myservice.impl.MyServiceImpl"/>
> > > *<binding.ws/>*
> > > <property name="location" source="$newLocation"/>
> > > <property name="year" source="$newYear"/>
> > > </component>
> > >
> > > This resulted in the following exception, but i think this is part of
> > the
> > > validation done by artifact processor and would result even if we
> > comment
> > > out the schema validation.
> > >
> > > org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.service.ContributionReadException:
> > > Unexpected <binding> element found. It should appear inside a
> <service>
> > or
> > > <reference> element
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.read(CompositeProcessor.java:373)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.read(CompositeProcessor.java:75)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor.read(ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor.java:83)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.service.impl.ContributionServiceImpl.processReadPhase(ContributionServiceImpl.java:475)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.service.impl.ContributionServiceImpl.addContribution(ContributionServiceImpl.java:383)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.service.impl.ContributionServiceImpl.contribute(ContributionServiceImpl.java:202)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.runtime.impl.DomainCompositeHelper.addContribution(DomainCompositeHelper.java:75)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.runtime.impl.SCAContainerComponentImpl.startComposite(SCAContainerComponentImpl.java:235)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.admin.runtime.tuscany.SCATuscanyRuntimeHandlerImpl.startModule(SCATuscanyRuntimeHandlerImpl.java:125)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.admin.runtime.impl.SCARuntimeImpl.start(SCARuntimeImpl.java:349)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.admin.runtime.impl.SCARuntimeImpl.start(SCARuntimeImpl.java:446)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.runtime.component.CompositionUnitMgrImpl.start(CompositionUnitMgrImpl.java:331)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.runtime.component.CompositionUnitImpl.start(CompositionUnitImpl.java:126)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.runtime.component.CompositionUnitMgrImpl.start(CompositionUnitMgrImpl.java:281)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.ws.runtime.component.CompositionUnitMgrImpl$CUInitializer.run(CompositionUnitMgrImpl.java:768)
> > > at
> > >
> > >
> >
> com.ibm.wsspi.runtime.component.WsComponentImpl$_AsynchInitializer.run(WsComponentImpl.java:348)
> > > at com.ibm.ws.util.ThreadPool$Worker.run(ThreadPool.java:1487)
> > >
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Currently, i see that we have various places where we can plug in
> > > > > validation
> > > > > monitoring. Some of the ones that i found are in the
> > > > > ReallySmallRuntimeBuilder as shown below:
> > > > >
> > > > > public static CompositeBuilder
> > > createCompositeBuilder(AssemblyFactory
> > > > > assemblyFactory,
> > > > >
> > > > SCABindingFactory
> > > > > scaBindingFactory,
> > > > >
> > > > > IntentAttachPointTypeFactory intentAttachPointTypeFactory,
> > > > >
> > > > > InterfaceContractMapper interfaceContractMapper,
> > > > >
> > > List<PolicySet>
> > > > > domainPolicySets) {
> > > > > return new CompositeBuilderImpl(assemblyFactory,
> > > > scaBindingFactory,
> > > > > intentAttachPointTypeFactory, interfaceContractMapper,
> > > domainPolicySets,
> > > > > null);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > public static DomainBuilder createDomainBuilder(AssemblyFactory
> > > > > assemblyFactory,
> > > > > SCABindingFactory scaBindingFactory,
> > > > > IntentAttachPointTypeFactory
> > intentAttachPointTypeFactory,
> > > > > InterfaceContractMapper interfaceContractMapper,
> > > > > List<PolicySet> domainPolicySets) {
> > > > > return new DomainWireBuilderImpl(assemblyFactory,
> > > > > scaBindingFactory,
> > > > > intentAttachPointTypeFactory, interfaceContractMapper,
> > > domainPolicySets,
> > > > > null);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of passing null, we can pass in our own
> > CompositeBuildMonitor.
> > > > Are
> > > > > these the only places where we need to do this? or are there other
> > > > places
> > > > > as
> > > > > well?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hasan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Hasan
> > > >
> > > > There are a few places that logically we need to be able to validate
> > > input
> > > > and hence add monitors. The story is changing a little as we are
> > moving
> > > > toward the new "workspace" code for managing contributions but
> > > logically
> > > > I
> > > > would expect to be running validating on at least the following
> > > >
> > > > - Contribution processing
> > > > - dependency (imports/exports) analysis
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> [org.apache.tuscany.sca.workspace.builder.impl.ContributionDependencyBuilderImpl]
> > > > - Composite read
> > > > - schema compliance
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> [org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory
> > > > - only appears to be initialized in ReallySmallRuntimeBuilder so
> need
> > to
> > > > look at this in context of workspace]
> > > > - policy intent matching
> > > > [org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeDocumentProcessor]
> > > > - extension availability [General artifact processor hierarchy]
> > > > - Composite resolve
> > > > - ensure that artifacts required by the composite are available
> > > [General
> > > > artifact resolver hierarchy]
> > > > - Composite build
> > > > - ensure that the composite is valid and consistent, e.g. unique
> > > > component names, valid reference targets etc.
> > > > [org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.builder.impl.CompositeBuilderImpl]
> > > >
> > > > I've noted in the square brackets where this function currently is.
> > Note
> > > > also that I'm making no comment here about whether the construction
> of
> > > the
> > > > in-memory composite model is for use purely for contribution
> > processing
> > > or
> > > > is going to activated and started in a runtime. This validation is
> > > > appropriate in both cases although you may choose to use different
> > > > monitors
> > > > in the two cases.
> > > >
> > > > So what I suggest as a first step is that you go ahead and change
> > > > ReallySmallRuntimeBuilder to plug a monitor into
> CompositeBuilderImpl
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > how it works. We can work here to build a consistent view of
> > > >
> > > > - all the places a monitor is required
> > > > - what should the plugin model for monitors be
> > > > - the flow of control (monitors vs exceptions)
> > > > - what extra features may be required, I18N etc.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to try a few experiments too to familiarize myself with
> this
> > a
> > > > bit
> > > > more.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi Hasan
> >
> > The change you suggest should cause a schema validation error. I made
> the
> > change locally in samples/calculator and see the following output in
> > stdout
> >
> > 08-Apr-2008 22:41:54
> >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidatingXMLStreamReader$1
> > error
> > WARNING: XMLSchema validation problem in: null, line: 28, column: 5
> > cvc-complex-type.2.4.a: Invalid content was found starting with element
> '
> > binding.ws'. One of '{"http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":include, "
> > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":service, "
> > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":property, "
> > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":component, "
> > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":reference, "
> > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":wire, WC[##other:"
> > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"]}' is expected.
> > 08-Apr-2008 22:41:54
> >
> >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor
> > read
> > WARNING: Element
> > {http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0}binding.ws<http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0%7Dbinding.ws>
> <http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0%7Dbinding.ws>cannot be
> > processed. ([row,col {unknown-source}]: [28,5])
> >
> > No exception is raised though.
> >
> > Let me take a look at what has changed.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
Ok, thanks for that Hasan. I see the change you are referencing. I'm not
sure why the exception is no longer thrown. The code is still in the
CompositeProcessor to trap the case but maybe the offending element is
removed from the stream because of the validation warning.
I would argue that we shouldn't mandate that an exception is thrown in this
case but that the validation mechanism is opened up to the monitor API so
that a monitor can be attached and those who are embedding tuscany can
decide how they want to deal with errors like this.
Simon
