You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> on 2009/02/18 19:57:16 UTC
Operation-level intents on binding.jms
I've been looking into TUSCANY-2849 "Operation-level intents on
binding.jms", and I have a few questions that possibly the group can answer.
The Jira states that the Tuscany web service binding implements to read
and write these intents, but being new to intents, I would like to be
sure I'm on the right track. First of all, is it true that the spec is
contained in SCA_Policy_Framework_V100.pdf, section 1.4.5 and the schema
in the appendix?
Secondly, I would like to see some example. For instance, in
PoliciedCalculator.composite in binding-wss-xml, I see the following
operation intent:
<binding.ws uri="http://localhost:8085/Calculator"
wsdlElement="http://sample/calculator#wsdl.service(CalculatorService)">
<operation name="add" requires="IntentOne IntentTwo"/>
</binding.ws>
I assume, the operation intent on the JMS binding would be similar. Is
this true? If anyone could point be to other examples that would make
useful test case, I would appreciate it.
I see Tuscany already had processors (e.g. ConfiguredOperationProcessor)
to read the intents, so binding.jms would make use of these processors.
[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2849
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Operation-level intents on binding.jms
Posted by Yang Lei <ya...@us.ibm.com>.
Be aware, OASIS is removing the operational level element from SCDL or
fcomponentType. There is new way to attach PolicySet to the operational
level...
Regards,
Yang Lei
Luciano Resende
<luckbr1975@gmail
.com> To
dev@tuscany.apache.org
02/18/2009 04:32 cc
PM
Subject
Re: Operation-level intents on
Please respond to binding.jms
dev@tuscany.apach
e.org
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Secondly, I would like to see some example. For instance, in
>>> PoliciedCalculator.composite in binding-wss-xml, I see the following
>>> operation intent:
>>> <binding.ws uri="http://localhost:8085/Calculator"
>>> wsdlElement="http://sample/calculator#wsdl.service(CalculatorService)">
>>> <operation name="add" requires="IntentOne IntentTwo"/>
>>> </binding.ws>
>>> I assume, the operation intent on the JMS binding would be similar. Is
>>> this
>>> true? If anyone could point be to other examples that would make useful
>>> test
>>> case, I would appreciate it.
>>>
>>> I see Tuscany already had processors (e.g.
ConfiguredOperationProcessor)
>>> to
>>> read the intents, so binding.jms would make use of these processors.
>>>
>>
>> Should the JMS Binding processor delegate to the extension point, and
>> then the operations element would be handled by compositeProcessor /
>> Policy processor ? If you run
>> org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.ReadAllTestCase and make a
>> breakpoint in compositeProcessor line 423 you should see how this is
>> delegation is happening.
>>
>>> [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2849
>
> Hi Luciano,
>
> Thanks for your comments. That helps me with understanding my third
question
> about how the policy and intents are read. I see that the
CompositeProcessor
> calls the JMSBindingProcessor which then tries to read the intent. Cool,
I
> understand this part now.
>
> Which brings me to the part that I am implementing. I'm getting some
> unexpected element errors in the JMSBindingProcess, and I'm trying to
> understand what a valid operation-level intent looks like.
>
> Would this be a legal JMS binding with a configured operation-level
intent?
> <binding.jms uri=\"jms:testQueue\" >"
> <operationProperties name=\"op1\">"
> </operationProperties >"
> <operation name=\"op1\" requires=\"IntentOne IntentTwo\"/>"
> </binding.jms>"
>
Looks ok to me. Note that you also need to provide a definitions.xml
with policySets providing IntentOne and IntentTwo.
If you have more details on the error, I could try helping, I'm
working on some policy code so have couple stuff fresh in my mind :)
> --
> Thanks, Dan Becker
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Operation-level intents on binding.jms
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Secondly, I would like to see some example. For instance, in
>>> PoliciedCalculator.composite in binding-wss-xml, I see the following
>>> operation intent:
>>> <binding.ws uri="http://localhost:8085/Calculator"
>>> wsdlElement="http://sample/calculator#wsdl.service(CalculatorService)">
>>> <operation name="add" requires="IntentOne IntentTwo"/>
>>> </binding.ws>
>>> I assume, the operation intent on the JMS binding would be similar. Is
>>> this
>>> true? If anyone could point be to other examples that would make useful
>>> test
>>> case, I would appreciate it.
>>>
>>> I see Tuscany already had processors (e.g. ConfiguredOperationProcessor)
>>> to
>>> read the intents, so binding.jms would make use of these processors.
>>>
>>
>> Should the JMS Binding processor delegate to the extension point, and
>> then the operations element would be handled by compositeProcessor /
>> Policy processor ? If you run
>> org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.ReadAllTestCase and make a
>> breakpoint in compositeProcessor line 423 you should see how this is
>> delegation is happening.
>>
>>> [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2849
>
> Hi Luciano,
>
> Thanks for your comments. That helps me with understanding my third question
> about how the policy and intents are read. I see that the CompositeProcessor
> calls the JMSBindingProcessor which then tries to read the intent. Cool, I
> understand this part now.
>
> Which brings me to the part that I am implementing. I'm getting some
> unexpected element errors in the JMSBindingProcess, and I'm trying to
> understand what a valid operation-level intent looks like.
>
> Would this be a legal JMS binding with a configured operation-level intent?
> <binding.jms uri=\"jms:testQueue\" >"
> <operationProperties name=\"op1\">"
> </operationProperties >"
> <operation name=\"op1\" requires=\"IntentOne IntentTwo\"/>"
> </binding.jms>"
>
Looks ok to me. Note that you also need to provide a definitions.xml
with policySets providing IntentOne and IntentTwo.
If you have more details on the error, I could try helping, I'm
working on some policy code so have couple stuff fresh in my mind :)
> --
> Thanks, Dan Becker
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Operation-level intents on binding.jms
Posted by Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com>.
Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Secondly, I would like to see some example. For instance, in
>> PoliciedCalculator.composite in binding-wss-xml, I see the following
>> operation intent:
>> <binding.ws uri="http://localhost:8085/Calculator"
>> wsdlElement="http://sample/calculator#wsdl.service(CalculatorService)">
>> <operation name="add" requires="IntentOne IntentTwo"/>
>> </binding.ws>
>> I assume, the operation intent on the JMS binding would be similar. Is this
>> true? If anyone could point be to other examples that would make useful test
>> case, I would appreciate it.
>>
>> I see Tuscany already had processors (e.g. ConfiguredOperationProcessor) to
>> read the intents, so binding.jms would make use of these processors.
>>
>
> Should the JMS Binding processor delegate to the extension point, and
> then the operations element would be handled by compositeProcessor /
> Policy processor ? If you run
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.ReadAllTestCase and make a
> breakpoint in compositeProcessor line 423 you should see how this is
> delegation is happening.
>
>> [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2849
Hi Luciano,
Thanks for your comments. That helps me with understanding my third
question about how the policy and intents are read. I see that the
CompositeProcessor calls the JMSBindingProcessor which then tries to
read the intent. Cool, I understand this part now.
Which brings me to the part that I am implementing. I'm getting some
unexpected element errors in the JMSBindingProcess, and I'm trying to
understand what a valid operation-level intent looks like.
Would this be a legal JMS binding with a configured operation-level intent?
<binding.jms uri=\"jms:testQueue\" >"
<operationProperties name=\"op1\">"
</operationProperties >"
<operation name=\"op1\" requires=\"IntentOne IntentTwo\"/>"
</binding.jms>"
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
Re: Operation-level intents on binding.jms
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Dan Becker <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been looking into TUSCANY-2849 "Operation-level intents on
> binding.jms", and I have a few questions that possibly the group can answer.
>
> The Jira states that the Tuscany web service binding implements to read and
> write these intents, but being new to intents, I would like to be sure I'm
> on the right track. First of all, is it true that the spec is contained in
> SCA_Policy_Framework_V100.pdf, section 1.4.5 and the schema in the appendix?
>
> Secondly, I would like to see some example. For instance, in
> PoliciedCalculator.composite in binding-wss-xml, I see the following
> operation intent:
> <binding.ws uri="http://localhost:8085/Calculator"
> wsdlElement="http://sample/calculator#wsdl.service(CalculatorService)">
> <operation name="add" requires="IntentOne IntentTwo"/>
> </binding.ws>
> I assume, the operation intent on the JMS binding would be similar. Is this
> true? If anyone could point be to other examples that would make useful test
> case, I would appreciate it.
>
> I see Tuscany already had processors (e.g. ConfiguredOperationProcessor) to
> read the intents, so binding.jms would make use of these processors.
>
Should the JMS Binding processor delegate to the extension point, and
then the operations element would be handled by compositeProcessor /
Policy processor ? If you run
org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.ReadAllTestCase and make a
breakpoint in compositeProcessor line 423 you should see how this is
delegation is happening.
> [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2849
> --
> Thanks, Dan Becker
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/