You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Steve Eynon <st...@alienfactory.co.uk> on 2012/09/10 04:02:40 UTC
Ioc Ordering Contraints
Hi,
I have a transform worker which I want to run after everything else (it
checks for the existence of an onActive() method) so I have the
following Module method, note the "after:*"
@Contribute(ComponentClassTransformWorker2.class)
@Primary
public static void provideTransformWorkers(
OrderedConfiguration<ComponentClassTransformWorker2> configuration) {
configuration.addInstance(
"ContextNotRequiredWorker",
NotRequiredWorker.class,
"after:*");
}
But then I get the following warning:
WARN : ConentClassTransformWorker - Unable to add 'UnclaimedField' as a
dependency of 'ContextNotRequiredWorker', as that forms a dependency
cycle ('ContextNotRequiredWorker' depends on itself via
'UnclaimedField'). The dependency has been ignored.
because T5 defines UnclaimedField to also be "after:*". How can I define
my config to be "after:* except UnclaimedField", or
"before:UnclaimedField but after:everthing else"?
Or does anyone know how else may I resolve my ordering problem?
Cheers,
Steve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Muhammad Gelbana <m....@gmail.com>.
*@Michael*
Constraints are very loose; after means 'somewhere after' rather than
> 'immediately after'
If that was the case, why did cause an issue if it was so loose ? Is this
one special case (i.e. after:***) ?
What's the advantage of having this behavior over having it strict as being
*immediately after* ? I haven't tried this before but if I had to chose,
I'd chose it to act as *immediately after*. Thinks would be more clear and
I only need to identify the injected transformers order to set mine up
correctly.
*@Steve*
*
*
Does it fit your needs to specify *UnclaimedField* order as *after:** and
then specify the other transformer with less priority to be before *
UnclaimedField* as *before: UnclaimedField* ?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Steve Eynon <steve.eynon@alienfactory.co.uk
> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> > just specify as many as are important to you.
>
> I kinda want mine to run last, because I need make sure no other
> workers (in T5 or other modules) add a onActivate() method. The issue
> here is that both my 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' and T5's
> 'UnclaimedField' want to run last - which isn't allowed.
>
> > the trick is to specify multiple constraints
>
> I could specify many "after" clauses for T5 workers as you mention,
> but that then won't (be guaranteed to) work if some other another
> module adds an onActivate() method.
>
> Stumpted,
>
> Steve.
> --
> Steve Eynon
> -------------------------------
> "If at first you don't succeed,
> so much for skydiving!"
>
>
>
> On 10 September 2012 10:13, Michael Prescott
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Michael
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Lenny Primak <lp...@hope.nyc.ny.us>.
Would be nice it we could get a printout of services within their constrains somehow. Is there any way to do that presently?
On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I have considered in the past is to be able to define
> "phases" for an ordered configuration, and place contributions within
> a phase, but also ordered relative to other contributions in that
> phase. Thus the service author would define (and document) a few
> phases, and contributions would go into those phases. The phases
> themselves would be ordered. So in your case, there might be a
> "FinalValidation" phase that, by default, just contained
> "UnclaimedField" and you could add your HasOnActivate contribution
> inside that phase.
>
> Even without code changes, we could create a few null contributions
> (that is allowed) that exist just as placeholders. So we could
> contribute a "FinalValidation" element, order most things
> "before:FinalValidation" an dorder UnclaimedField
> "after:FinalValidation".
>
> Another alternative I've considered is new API that would allow you to
> modify existing contribution's constraints.
>
> Yes, this is complicated, because the basic concept is complicated in
> certain edge cases. The complexity is just an outgrown of the design
> requirements: handling the addition of any number of modules at
> runtime, and the growth of the framework over time.
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM, trsvax <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd try creating a dummy worker called beforeUnclaimedField and make it
>>
>> before:UnclaimedField
>>
>> then change yours to
>>
>> after:beforeUnclaimedField
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Ioc-Ordering-Contraints-tp5716154p5716171.html
>> Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>
> Creator of Apache Tapestry
>
> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
>
> (971) 678-5210
> http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by trsvax <tr...@gmail.com>.
It would be nice just to have some documented "markers". I usually just look
at the TapestryModule class to figure out what to do, but having some
documented phases would probably solve most issues. It would also solve the
problem workers changing between releases. For example what if
UnclaimedField goes away.
--
View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Ioc-Ordering-Contraints-tp5716154p5716174.html
Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
One thing I have considered in the past is to be able to define
"phases" for an ordered configuration, and place contributions within
a phase, but also ordered relative to other contributions in that
phase. Thus the service author would define (and document) a few
phases, and contributions would go into those phases. The phases
themselves would be ordered. So in your case, there might be a
"FinalValidation" phase that, by default, just contained
"UnclaimedField" and you could add your HasOnActivate contribution
inside that phase.
Even without code changes, we could create a few null contributions
(that is allowed) that exist just as placeholders. So we could
contribute a "FinalValidation" element, order most things
"before:FinalValidation" an dorder UnclaimedField
"after:FinalValidation".
Another alternative I've considered is new API that would allow you to
modify existing contribution's constraints.
Yes, this is complicated, because the basic concept is complicated in
certain edge cases. The complexity is just an outgrown of the design
requirements: handling the addition of any number of modules at
runtime, and the growth of the framework over time.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM, trsvax <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd try creating a dummy worker called beforeUnclaimedField and make it
>
> before:UnclaimedField
>
> then change yours to
>
> after:beforeUnclaimedField
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Ioc-Ordering-Contraints-tp5716154p5716171.html
> Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by trsvax <tr...@gmail.com>.
I'd try creating a dummy worker called beforeUnclaimedField and make it
before:UnclaimedField
then change yours to
after:beforeUnclaimedField
--
View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Ioc-Ordering-Contraints-tp5716154p5716171.html
Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Steve Eynon <st...@alienfactory.co.uk>.
> I think you are looking for the "ultimate solution" here that doesn't exist.
Yeah, maybe. Sigh. :`(
I guess I was jus' hoping I'd overlooked something.
Nevermind, I'll live! :)
Cheers to all for the suggestions.
Steve.
On 10 September 2012 23:27, Lenny Primak <lp...@hope.nyc.ny.us> wrote:
> Hey, Steve,
>
> I think you are looking for the "ultimate solution" here that doesn't exist.
> I don't think you can make it work in all cases and all configurations.
> I think you need to find the last service that's really there and the one you
> need to be after, and put that in the constraints.
> Since you know what you actually are putting in your app, that will never change
> until you add more modules.
>
> On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Steve Eynon <st...@alienfactory.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> I had previously tried "before:UnclaimedField", "after:*" - but
>> doesn't matter which way round the constraints go, I still get:
>>
>> Unable to add 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' as a dependency of
>> 'UnclaimedField', as that forms a dependency cycle ('UnclaimedField'
>> depends on itself via 'ContextNotRequiredWorker'). The dependency has
>> been ignored.
>>
>> Steve.
>>
>> On 10 September 2012 19:37, Robert Zeigler <ro...@roxanemy.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Steve, have you tried specifying "after:*", "before:UnclaimedField"?
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> On Sep 9, 2012, at 9/99:33 PM , Steve Eynon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>>> just specify as many as are important to you.
>>>>
>>>> I kinda want mine to run last, because I need make sure no other
>>>> workers (in T5 or other modules) add a onActivate() method. The issue
>>>> here is that both my 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' and T5's
>>>> 'UnclaimedField' want to run last - which isn't allowed.
>>>>
>>>>> the trick is to specify multiple constraints
>>>>
>>>> I could specify many "after" clauses for T5 workers as you mention,
>>>> but that then won't (be guaranteed to) work if some other another
>>>> module adds an onActivate() method.
>>>>
>>>> Stumpted,
>>>>
>>>> Steve.
>>>> --
>>>> Steve Eynon
>>>> -------------------------------
>>>> "If at first you don't succeed,
>>>> so much for skydiving!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10 September 2012 10:13, Michael Prescott
>>>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Lenny Primak <lp...@hope.nyc.ny.us>.
Hey, Steve,
I think you are looking for the "ultimate solution" here that doesn't exist.
I don't think you can make it work in all cases and all configurations.
I think you need to find the last service that's really there and the one you
need to be after, and put that in the constraints.
Since you know what you actually are putting in your app, that will never change
until you add more modules.
On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Steve Eynon <st...@alienfactory.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I had previously tried "before:UnclaimedField", "after:*" - but
> doesn't matter which way round the constraints go, I still get:
>
> Unable to add 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' as a dependency of
> 'UnclaimedField', as that forms a dependency cycle ('UnclaimedField'
> depends on itself via 'ContextNotRequiredWorker'). The dependency has
> been ignored.
>
> Steve.
>
> On 10 September 2012 19:37, Robert Zeigler <ro...@roxanemy.com> wrote:
>> Hi Steve, have you tried specifying "after:*", "before:UnclaimedField"?
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2012, at 9/99:33 PM , Steve Eynon wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>>> just specify as many as are important to you.
>>>
>>> I kinda want mine to run last, because I need make sure no other
>>> workers (in T5 or other modules) add a onActivate() method. The issue
>>> here is that both my 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' and T5's
>>> 'UnclaimedField' want to run last - which isn't allowed.
>>>
>>>> the trick is to specify multiple constraints
>>>
>>> I could specify many "after" clauses for T5 workers as you mention,
>>> but that then won't (be guaranteed to) work if some other another
>>> module adds an onActivate() method.
>>>
>>> Stumpted,
>>>
>>> Steve.
>>> --
>>> Steve Eynon
>>> -------------------------------
>>> "If at first you don't succeed,
>>> so much for skydiving!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 September 2012 10:13, Michael Prescott
>>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Steve Eynon <st...@alienfactory.co.uk>.
Hi Robert,
I had previously tried "before:UnclaimedField", "after:*" - but
doesn't matter which way round the constraints go, I still get:
Unable to add 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' as a dependency of
'UnclaimedField', as that forms a dependency cycle ('UnclaimedField'
depends on itself via 'ContextNotRequiredWorker'). The dependency has
been ignored.
Steve.
On 10 September 2012 19:37, Robert Zeigler <ro...@roxanemy.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve, have you tried specifying "after:*", "before:UnclaimedField"?
>
> Robert
>
> On Sep 9, 2012, at 9/99:33 PM , Steve Eynon wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>> just specify as many as are important to you.
>>
>> I kinda want mine to run last, because I need make sure no other
>> workers (in T5 or other modules) add a onActivate() method. The issue
>> here is that both my 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' and T5's
>> 'UnclaimedField' want to run last - which isn't allowed.
>>
>>> the trick is to specify multiple constraints
>>
>> I could specify many "after" clauses for T5 workers as you mention,
>> but that then won't (be guaranteed to) work if some other another
>> module adds an onActivate() method.
>>
>> Stumpted,
>>
>> Steve.
>> --
>> Steve Eynon
>> -------------------------------
>> "If at first you don't succeed,
>> so much for skydiving!"
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 September 2012 10:13, Michael Prescott
>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Michael
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Robert Zeigler <ro...@roxanemy.com>.
Hi Steve, have you tried specifying "after:*", "before:UnclaimedField"?
Robert
On Sep 9, 2012, at 9/99:33 PM , Steve Eynon wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>> just specify as many as are important to you.
>
> I kinda want mine to run last, because I need make sure no other
> workers (in T5 or other modules) add a onActivate() method. The issue
> here is that both my 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' and T5's
> 'UnclaimedField' want to run last - which isn't allowed.
>
>> the trick is to specify multiple constraints
>
> I could specify many "after" clauses for T5 workers as you mention,
> but that then won't (be guaranteed to) work if some other another
> module adds an onActivate() method.
>
> Stumpted,
>
> Steve.
> --
> Steve Eynon
> -------------------------------
> "If at first you don't succeed,
> so much for skydiving!"
>
>
>
> On 10 September 2012 10:13, Michael Prescott
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Steve Eynon <st...@alienfactory.co.uk>.
Hi Michael,
> just specify as many as are important to you.
I kinda want mine to run last, because I need make sure no other
workers (in T5 or other modules) add a onActivate() method. The issue
here is that both my 'ContextNotRequiredWorker' and T5's
'UnclaimedField' want to run last - which isn't allowed.
> the trick is to specify multiple constraints
I could specify many "after" clauses for T5 workers as you mention,
but that then won't (be guaranteed to) work if some other another
module adds an onActivate() method.
Stumpted,
Steve.
--
Steve Eynon
-------------------------------
"If at first you don't succeed,
so much for skydiving!"
On 10 September 2012 10:13, Michael Prescott
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Lance Java <la...@googlemail.com>.
Tapestry's ordered constraints need to be like this to allow distributed
configuration. If two contributions specify "after:X", tapestry will make
sure that they both occur after X. Since it's impossible to order both
directly after X, tapestry will (pseudo randomly) decide an ordering which
is not guaranteed.
Likewise, if two contributions (A and B) specify a constraint of "after:**",
tapestry will guarantee that both A and B occur after the other
contributions but the ordering of A and B is not guaranteed. If you need
more specific ordering, you will need to be more specific ;)
--
View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Ioc-Ordering-Contraints-tp5716154p5716159.html
Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Ioc Ordering Contraints
Posted by Michael Prescott <mi...@gmail.com>.
Apparently, the trick is to specify multiple constraints. Constraints are
very loose; after means 'somewhere after' rather than 'immediately after',
so just specify as many as are important to you.
Someone more informed can weigh in whether you can mix specific constraints
with wildcards. In the meantime, give it a shot!
Michael
On 9 September 2012 22:02, Steve Eynon <st...@alienfactory.co.uk>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a transform worker which I want to run after everything else (it
> checks for the existence of an onActive() method) so I have the following
> Module method, note the "after:*"
>
> @Contribute(**ComponentClassTransformWorker2**.class)
> @Primary
> public static void provideTransformWorkers(
> OrderedConfiguration<**ComponentClassTransformWorker2**> configuration)
> {
>
> configuration.addInstance(
> "ContextNotRequiredWorker",
> NotRequiredWorker.class,
> "after:*");
> }
>
> But then I get the following warning:
>
> WARN : ConentClassTransformWorker - Unable to add 'UnclaimedField' as a
> dependency of 'ContextNotRequiredWorker', as that forms a dependency cycle
> ('ContextNotRequiredWorker' depends on itself via 'UnclaimedField'). The
> dependency has been ignored.
>
> because T5 defines UnclaimedField to also be "after:*". How can I define
> my config to be "after:* except UnclaimedField", or "before:UnclaimedField
> but after:everthing else"?
>
> Or does anyone know how else may I resolve my ordering problem?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve.
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<us...@tapestry.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>