On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > We should have an api for plugins to provide a resource bundle. This api
> > probably needs to be on the monitor or somewhere, i am not sure. But the
> > scenario occurs when plugins want to use the default Monitor but still
> > want
> > to use their own resource bundle for messageIDs.
> >
> > regards
> > Hasan
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > I looked at the new Monitor and Problem interfaces. What do
> > getMessageId()
> > > and getMessageParams() actually return? is MessageId a way to
> > categorize the
> > > error message?
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Hasan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Simon,
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if i can cook up some validation test cases if they
> > do
> > > > not exist. Or should we wait until the monitor issue is resolved ?
> > > >
> > > > Hasan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont think using an underlying tuscany jdk logger would be
> > useful to
> > > > > plugins as they may not want to log, rather show it somewhere else
> > such as
> > > > > console etc. Tuscany can use an underlying logger in it's own
> > monitor ( as
> > > > > it uses today). But i think the first approach of using a monitor
> > is better
> > > > > along with the condition that it be made more usable by the
> > plugins by
> > > > > giving them greater control.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another point is that tuscany should use ResourceBundle for
> > validation
> > > > > messages as well. I dont think this is being done today.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards
> > > > > Hasan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Simon Laws <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Simon Laws <
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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>
> > > > > > <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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just been through the original list again looking at what
> > > > > > happens with
> > > > > > validation types errors (by which I mean a workspace type admin
> > > > > > console
> > > > > > would reasonably want to display based on user input/changes).
> > This
> > > > > > is what
> > > > > > I found.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Contribution processing
> > > > > > - dependency (imports/exports) analysis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > org.apache.tuscany.sca.workspace.builder.impl.ContributionDependencyBuilderImpl
> > > > > > uses a ContributionDependencyBuilderMonitor
> > > > > > - Composite read
> > > > > > - schema compliance
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory
> > > > > > Uses writes to local JDK Logger
> > > > > > - policy intent matching
> > > > > >
> > org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeDocumentProcessor
> > > > > > Throws exceptions
> > > > > > - extension availability
> > > > > > General artifact processor hierarchy
> > > > > > Throws exceptions
> > > > > > - SCA compliance, e.g. annotation correctness
> > > > > > General artifact processor hierarchy
> > > > > > Throws exceptions
> > > > > > - Composite resolve
> > > > > > - ensure that artifacts required by the composite are
> > available
> > > > > > General artifact resolver hierarchy
> > > > > > Throws exceptions
> > > > > > - 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
> > > > > > uses a CompositeBuilderMonitor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to look for a more consistent approach across these
> > > > > > various
> > > > > > elements of validation. The aim being to make it more obvious
> > how to
> > > > > > recognize validation type errors and act accordingly. There has
> > been
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > relatively lengthy debate about how to group and report errors
> > in
> > > > > > [1] which
> > > > > > is worth a read. The scenarios I have in mind are workspace
> > > > > > administration
> > > > > > type scenarios where, for example, A user may
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Add a contribution and be notified that contributions that it
> > > > > > depends on are
> > > > > > not available
> > > > > > Look at a composite and be notified that there are XML and/or
> > SCA
> > > > > > errors
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From [1] we want to capture as many errors as possible before
> > > > > > reporting back
> > > > > > to the user. Two things come immediately to mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1 - Pull up the Monitor API and make it more generic (and from
> > > > > > previous
> > > > > > comments here make it an extension point)
> > > > > > 2 - Rely on a Tuscany specific JDK logger and remove the monitor
> > (or
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > least don't extend it further).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm going to think some more about these options. Any thoughts
> > or
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > options?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg29878.html
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> Hi Hasan
>
> What do you mean in your question by "plugin". If you mean an Tuscany
> extension then I think we have that covered as each extension will ship with
> any bundles that it needs and stll the default monitor can be used.
>
> Here is the model I have in my head of this.
>
> runtime
> monitor
> module (there are many of these in the runtime)
> resource bundle
> raises problems - each problem references the name of a resource
> bundle for the modules in question (I don't believe I can get the name of
> the module automatically)
>
> So I'm anticipating that the runtime will create a single monitor but this
> is not a hard and fast rule.
>
> Each module/extension raises problems referencing the resource bundle that
> it contains. Hence the module provides messages appropriate to errors that
> it will raise. The resource bundle reference is by root name so there is not
> reason why the resource bundle couldn't be put somewhere else.
>
> If you want to change the default messages that are provided, as opposed
> to create a new extension with new messages, there are a number of options.
>
> - The source code approach - i.e. change the bundles provided
> - Provide new bundles first on the classpath - I think they will get
> picked up in preference to the default ones but I would have to test it to
> see
> - We could reorganize the bundles so they are in their in their own
> separate jars. Then you would provide a replacement jar.
> - Add an API to the monitor to allow a bundle mapping to be specified. In
> this case though it seems easier to provide a new monitor implementation
> rather than providing a new API.
>
> There are probably more options so any thoughts are welcome. I'm currently
> working on getting the new monitor integrated into the existing modules
> (primarily assembly) so we will have something to try out. We can take a
> look at these options for real when I'm done.
>
> Simon
>
Hi
I've just checked in the changes to do the basic integration of the monitor
extension with the rest of the code base. Its a light touch end to end
integration at the moment. Here are some of the TODOs
- Move messages into resource bundles.
- Local monitors are still created in some places.
- If a monitor implementation is not found then a warning is raised but
execution continues so that I don't have to change the dependencies of the
many tests that now don't pull in a monitor but also don't raise any
warnings. May want to address this but It's OK for the time being.
Hopefully now the validation itests make more sense now. The test to look at
is the duplicate component name test. This is the only message I've moved
out into a resource bundle at the moment. Now I have the basics in I'll move
all the messages and do the tidying up.
Also I've switched to using node instead of domain in the tests. I notice
we need to do some work on the constructor for this type of use. I'll work
on this too.
Regards
Simon
