[Discussion] Exception Handing when adding remote binding to services

[Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>]

TUSCANY 1881, talks about throwing a warning msg when adding remote bindings
to services with interfaces not marked as remotable, by which the data
transformation might get messed up.

>From the current implementation, I understand that the datatransformation
interceptor will not be inserted in the invocation chain if the target
interface is not marked as remotable. Not having this interceptor will end
up with binding specific data transformations not being done.. So unless the
target binding does have any trouble with the arguments and returntypes
because of the absence of transformations... we do not have any issues. But
otherwise we might end up in runtime exceptions being thrown.

While thinking at a solution to this issue, i could think of various options
as shown below, but not sure which one is the right approach?

OPTION 1: About issue shows how lack of Remotable ends up in runtime
exception when service methods are invoked, can't we somehow trap this
during component build or activatoin time itself?

OPTION 2: I believe this whole thing can be solved if we can simply check in
the binding if the interface is marked remote.

OPTION 3: Currently DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method checks
if the source and target interfaces is remotable before it validates to see
if data transformation is required. One way of solution to throw a warning
msg is to check the source and target datatypes, if their datatypes are diff
we assume that data transformation is required and we look if the interfaces
are marked remotable, if not we throw a warning msg to alert that there
could be an unexpected behaviour in data transformation.

OPTION 4: In the DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method, just
check if the source and target interface is remotable OR if the source and
target datatypes are different. If any one condition is satisfied then we
assume that data transformation is required.

Apart from the above mentioned issue, do we need to make such checks for ws
binding as well OR do we need this checks for all kind of bindings. Like to
know people's view on this regard. Thanks.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam

Re: [Discussion] Exception Handing when adding remote binding to services

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

Hi Ram

snip....


> In case of JSON-RPC binding (our original scenario), when the interface is
> not defined @Remotable the runtime just ignores the data transformation
> between the binding without throwing any exception.


In you test do you have binding.jsonrpc on reference and service sides? If
so it's ignore it because I don't think reference side binding.jsonrpc has
been implemented yet.


>
> But I have noticed that in case of Axis2 binding for the same scenario, we
> get an exception as shown below.
> *java.lang.IllegalArgumentException*: Can't handle *mixed* payloads between
> OMElements and other types.
>

So the message is still going via the web service binding which still
expects Axiom formatted input. But there must be a switch somewhere that
says, if the interface is not marked as remotable then don't bother doing
data transformations as messages will only be passed locally. I'll have to
check in the code as I don't know how this fits in with cases where you
might expect transformation to take place, e.g. talking locally to a
non-java implementation such as BPEL.


> I believe, just throwing a warning would not help for all kind of
> bindings.... as such scenario could even throw runtime exceptions
> sometimes.
> Not sure how to handle such scenarios. Please suggest.
>

We really need to raise an error because it's not really a valid
configuration. Where is the test going to happen?


>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>

Re: [Discussion] Exception Handing when adding remote binding to services

[Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>]

On 4/23/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 4/18/08, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  On 4/18/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > TUSCANY 1881, talks about throwing a warning msg when adding remote
> > >> > bindings
> > >> > to services with interfaces not marked as remotable, by which the
> > data
> > >> > transformation might get messed up.
> > >> >
> > >> > From the current implementation, I understand that the
> > >> datatransformation
> > >> > interceptor will not be inserted in the invocation chain if the
> > target
> > >> > interface is not marked as remotable. Not having this interceptor
> > will
> > >> end
> > >> > up with binding specific data transformations not being done.. So
> > unless
> > >> > the
> > >> > target binding does have any trouble with the arguments and
> > returntypes
> > >> > because of the absence of transformations... we do not have any
> > issues.
> > >> > But
> > >> > otherwise we might end up in runtime exceptions being thrown.
> > >> >
> > >> > While thinking at a solution to this issue, i could think of various
> > >> > options
> > >> > as shown below, but not sure which one is the right approach?
> > >> >
> > >> > OPTION 1: About issue shows how lack of Remotable ends up in runtime
> > >> > exception when service methods are invoked, can't we somehow trap
> > this
> > >> > during component build or activatoin time itself?
> > >> >
> > >> > OPTION 2: I believe this whole thing can be solved if we can simply
> > >> check
> > >> > in
> > >> > the binding if the interface is marked remote.
> > >> >
> > >> > OPTION 3: Currently DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method
> > >> > checks
> > >> > if the source and target interfaces is remotable before it validates
> > to
> > >> > see
> > >> > if data transformation is required. One way of solution to throw a
> > >> warning
> > >> > msg is to check the source and target datatypes, if their datatypes
> > are
> > >> > diff
> > >> > we assume that data transformation is required and we look if the
> > >> > interfaces
> > >> > are marked remotable, if not we throw a warning msg to alert that
> > there
> > >> > could be an unexpected behaviour in data transformation.
> > >> >
> > >> > OPTION 4: In the DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method,
> > just
> > >> > check if the source and target interface is remotable OR if the
> > source
> > >> and
> > >> > target datatypes are different. If any one condition is satisfied
> > then
> > >> we
> > >> > assume that data transformation is required.
> > >> >
> > >> > Apart from the above mentioned issue, do we need to make such checks
> > for
> > >> > ws
> > >> > binding as well OR do we need this checks for all kind of bindings.
> > Like
> > >> > to
> > >> > know people's view on this regard. Thanks.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Thanks & Regards,
> > >> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Hi Ramkumar
> > >>
> > >> When I originally raised the JIRA I had imagined the solution would be
> > >> your
> > >> OPTION 1. So that we get a warning that at least tells the user that
> > they
> > >> are doing something odd. In my case it took me a while to work out
> what
> > >> the
> > >> problem was so it would have been nice if the runtime had at least
> said
> > >> "you
> > >> are dong something strange are you sure you want to do this".
> > >>
> > >> I hadn't imagines that we could introduce a data transformation in
> this
> > >> case. Is there code in there that tries and optimizes away the remote
> > >> binding if it detects that the components are running locally?
> > >>
> > >> Simon
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > > I believe, we don't do any validatation to identify if the component is
> > > local / remote. But anyway we assume that the component is remote by
> > > checking if the interface is remotable. I could see that we only check
> > if
> > > the interfaces are remotable and we try to apply appropriate binding
> and
> > > data transformation upon them.
> > >
> > > I agree with your idea of identifying the component as local/remote and
> > do
> > > some optimization on binding and data transformation part. If everyone
> > > agrees that we need this in place we can probably think of taking this
> > > suggestion forward.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> > >
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> > In the mean time, while leaving the optimization part. To fix the issue
> > mentioned in TUSCANY-1881, i believe the best solution would be to
> > identify
> > at the bindingProvider level (except for binding.sca) to check if the
> > source
> > and target interface is remotable and throw a warning message as
> required.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Simon
>

Hi Simon,
In case of JSON-RPC binding (our original scenario), when the interface is
not defined @Remotable the runtime just ignores the data transformation
between the binding without throwing any exception.

But I have noticed that in case of Axis2 binding for the same scenario, we
get an exception as shown below.
*java.lang.IllegalArgumentException*: Can't handle *mixed* payloads between
OMElements and other types.

I believe, just throwing a warning would not help for all kind of
bindings.... as such scenario could even throw runtime exceptions sometimes.
Not sure how to handle such scenarios. Please suggest.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam

Re: [Discussion] Exception Handing when adding remote binding to services

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/18/08, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  On 4/18/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > TUSCANY 1881, talks about throwing a warning msg when adding remote
> >> > bindings
> >> > to services with interfaces not marked as remotable, by which the
> data
> >> > transformation might get messed up.
> >> >
> >> > From the current implementation, I understand that the
> >> datatransformation
> >> > interceptor will not be inserted in the invocation chain if the
> target
> >> > interface is not marked as remotable. Not having this interceptor
> will
> >> end
> >> > up with binding specific data transformations not being done.. So
> unless
> >> > the
> >> > target binding does have any trouble with the arguments and
> returntypes
> >> > because of the absence of transformations... we do not have any
> issues.
> >> > But
> >> > otherwise we might end up in runtime exceptions being thrown.
> >> >
> >> > While thinking at a solution to this issue, i could think of various
> >> > options
> >> > as shown below, but not sure which one is the right approach?
> >> >
> >> > OPTION 1: About issue shows how lack of Remotable ends up in runtime
> >> > exception when service methods are invoked, can't we somehow trap
> this
> >> > during component build or activatoin time itself?
> >> >
> >> > OPTION 2: I believe this whole thing can be solved if we can simply
> >> check
> >> > in
> >> > the binding if the interface is marked remote.
> >> >
> >> > OPTION 3: Currently DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method
> >> > checks
> >> > if the source and target interfaces is remotable before it validates
> to
> >> > see
> >> > if data transformation is required. One way of solution to throw a
> >> warning
> >> > msg is to check the source and target datatypes, if their datatypes
> are
> >> > diff
> >> > we assume that data transformation is required and we look if the
> >> > interfaces
> >> > are marked remotable, if not we throw a warning msg to alert that
> there
> >> > could be an unexpected behaviour in data transformation.
> >> >
> >> > OPTION 4: In the DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method,
> just
> >> > check if the source and target interface is remotable OR if the
> source
> >> and
> >> > target datatypes are different. If any one condition is satisfied
> then
> >> we
> >> > assume that data transformation is required.
> >> >
> >> > Apart from the above mentioned issue, do we need to make such checks
> for
> >> > ws
> >> > binding as well OR do we need this checks for all kind of bindings.
> Like
> >> > to
> >> > know people's view on this regard. Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Thanks & Regards,
> >> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi Ramkumar
> >>
> >> When I originally raised the JIRA I had imagined the solution would be
> >> your
> >> OPTION 1. So that we get a warning that at least tells the user that
> they
> >> are doing something odd. In my case it took me a while to work out what
> >> the
> >> problem was so it would have been nice if the runtime had at least said
> >> "you
> >> are dong something strange are you sure you want to do this".
> >>
> >> I hadn't imagines that we could introduce a data transformation in this
> >> case. Is there code in there that tries and optimizes away the remote
> >> binding if it detects that the components are running locally?
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> > I believe, we don't do any validatation to identify if the component is
> > local / remote. But anyway we assume that the component is remote by
> > checking if the interface is remotable. I could see that we only check
> if
> > the interfaces are remotable and we try to apply appropriate binding and
> > data transformation upon them.
> >
> > I agree with your idea of identifying the component as local/remote and
> do
> > some optimization on binding and data transformation part. If everyone
> > agrees that we need this in place we can probably think of taking this
> > suggestion forward.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >
>
> Hi Simon,
> In the mean time, while leaving the optimization part. To fix the issue
> mentioned in TUSCANY-1881, i believe the best solution would be to
> identify
> at the bindingProvider level (except for binding.sca) to check if the
> source
> and target interface is remotable and throw a warning message as required.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>

Sounds good to me.

Simon

Re: [Discussion] Exception Handing when adding remote binding to services

[Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>]

On 4/18/08, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On 4/18/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > TUSCANY 1881, talks about throwing a warning msg when adding remote
>> > bindings
>> > to services with interfaces not marked as remotable, by which the data
>> > transformation might get messed up.
>> >
>> > From the current implementation, I understand that the
>> datatransformation
>> > interceptor will not be inserted in the invocation chain if the target
>> > interface is not marked as remotable. Not having this interceptor will
>> end
>> > up with binding specific data transformations not being done.. So unless
>> > the
>> > target binding does have any trouble with the arguments and returntypes
>> > because of the absence of transformations... we do not have any issues.
>> > But
>> > otherwise we might end up in runtime exceptions being thrown.
>> >
>> > While thinking at a solution to this issue, i could think of various
>> > options
>> > as shown below, but not sure which one is the right approach?
>> >
>> > OPTION 1: About issue shows how lack of Remotable ends up in runtime
>> > exception when service methods are invoked, can't we somehow trap this
>> > during component build or activatoin time itself?
>> >
>> > OPTION 2: I believe this whole thing can be solved if we can simply
>> check
>> > in
>> > the binding if the interface is marked remote.
>> >
>> > OPTION 3: Currently DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method
>> > checks
>> > if the source and target interfaces is remotable before it validates to
>> > see
>> > if data transformation is required. One way of solution to throw a
>> warning
>> > msg is to check the source and target datatypes, if their datatypes are
>> > diff
>> > we assume that data transformation is required and we look if the
>> > interfaces
>> > are marked remotable, if not we throw a warning msg to alert that there
>> > could be an unexpected behaviour in data transformation.
>> >
>> > OPTION 4: In the DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method, just
>> > check if the source and target interface is remotable OR if the source
>> and
>> > target datatypes are different. If any one condition is satisfied then
>> we
>> > assume that data transformation is required.
>> >
>> > Apart from the above mentioned issue, do we need to make such checks for
>> > ws
>> > binding as well OR do we need this checks for all kind of bindings. Like
>> > to
>> > know people's view on this regard. Thanks.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks & Regards,
>> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
>> >
>>
>> Hi Ramkumar
>>
>> When I originally raised the JIRA I had imagined the solution would be
>> your
>> OPTION 1. So that we get a warning that at least tells the user that they
>> are doing something odd. In my case it took me a while to work out what
>> the
>> problem was so it would have been nice if the runtime had at least said
>> "you
>> are dong something strange are you sure you want to do this".
>>
>> I hadn't imagines that we could introduce a data transformation in this
>> case. Is there code in there that tries and optimizes away the remote
>> binding if it detects that the components are running locally?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> Hi Simon,
> I believe, we don't do any validatation to identify if the component is
> local / remote. But anyway we assume that the component is remote by
> checking if the interface is remotable. I could see that we only check if
> the interfaces are remotable and we try to apply appropriate binding and
> data transformation upon them.
>
> I agree with your idea of identifying the component as local/remote and do
> some optimization on binding and data transformation part. If everyone
> agrees that we need this in place we can probably think of taking this
> suggestion forward.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>

Hi Simon,
In the mean time, while leaving the optimization part. To fix the issue
mentioned in TUSCANY-1881, i believe the best solution would be to identify
at the bindingProvider level (except for binding.sca) to check if the source
and target interface is remotable and throw a warning message as required.

Hope this helps.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam

Re: [Discussion] Exception Handing when adding remote binding to services

[Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>]

On 4/18/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > TUSCANY 1881, talks about throwing a warning msg when adding remote
> > bindings
> > to services with interfaces not marked as remotable, by which the data
> > transformation might get messed up.
> >
> > From the current implementation, I understand that the
> datatransformation
> > interceptor will not be inserted in the invocation chain if the target
> > interface is not marked as remotable. Not having this interceptor will
> end
> > up with binding specific data transformations not being done.. So unless
> > the
> > target binding does have any trouble with the arguments and returntypes
> > because of the absence of transformations... we do not have any issues.
> > But
> > otherwise we might end up in runtime exceptions being thrown.
> >
> > While thinking at a solution to this issue, i could think of various
> > options
> > as shown below, but not sure which one is the right approach?
> >
> > OPTION 1: About issue shows how lack of Remotable ends up in runtime
> > exception when service methods are invoked, can't we somehow trap this
> > during component build or activatoin time itself?
> >
> > OPTION 2: I believe this whole thing can be solved if we can simply
> check
> > in
> > the binding if the interface is marked remote.
> >
> > OPTION 3: Currently DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method
> > checks
> > if the source and target interfaces is remotable before it validates to
> > see
> > if data transformation is required. One way of solution to throw a
> warning
> > msg is to check the source and target datatypes, if their datatypes are
> > diff
> > we assume that data transformation is required and we look if the
> > interfaces
> > are marked remotable, if not we throw a warning msg to alert that there
> > could be an unexpected behaviour in data transformation.
> >
> > OPTION 4: In the DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method, just
> > check if the source and target interface is remotable OR if the source
> and
> > target datatypes are different. If any one condition is satisfied then
> we
> > assume that data transformation is required.
> >
> > Apart from the above mentioned issue, do we need to make such checks for
> > ws
> > binding as well OR do we need this checks for all kind of bindings. Like
> > to
> > know people's view on this regard. Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >
>
> Hi Ramkumar
>
> When I originally raised the JIRA I had imagined the solution would be
> your
> OPTION 1. So that we get a warning that at least tells the user that they
> are doing something odd. In my case it took me a while to work out what
> the
> problem was so it would have been nice if the runtime had at least said
> "you
> are dong something strange are you sure you want to do this".
>
> I hadn't imagines that we could introduce a data transformation in this
> case. Is there code in there that tries and optimizes away the remote
> binding if it detects that the components are running locally?
>
> Simon
>

Hi Simon,
I believe, we don't do any validatation to identify if the component is
local / remote. But anyway we assume that the component is remote by
checking if the interface is remotable. I could see that we only check if
the interfaces are remotable and we try to apply appropriate binding and
data transformation upon them.

I agree with your idea of identifying the component as local/remote and do
some optimization on binding and data transformation part. If everyone
agrees that we need this in place we can probably think of taking this
suggestion forward.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam

Re: [Discussion] Exception Handing when adding remote binding to services

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> TUSCANY 1881, talks about throwing a warning msg when adding remote
> bindings
> to services with interfaces not marked as remotable, by which the data
> transformation might get messed up.
>
> From the current implementation, I understand that the datatransformation
> interceptor will not be inserted in the invocation chain if the target
> interface is not marked as remotable. Not having this interceptor will end
> up with binding specific data transformations not being done.. So unless
> the
> target binding does have any trouble with the arguments and returntypes
> because of the absence of transformations... we do not have any issues.
> But
> otherwise we might end up in runtime exceptions being thrown.
>
> While thinking at a solution to this issue, i could think of various
> options
> as shown below, but not sure which one is the right approach?
>
> OPTION 1: About issue shows how lack of Remotable ends up in runtime
> exception when service methods are invoked, can't we somehow trap this
> during component build or activatoin time itself?
>
> OPTION 2: I believe this whole thing can be solved if we can simply check
> in
> the binding if the interface is marked remote.
>
> OPTION 3: Currently DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method
> checks
> if the source and target interfaces is remotable before it validates to
> see
> if data transformation is required. One way of solution to throw a warning
> msg is to check the source and target datatypes, if their datatypes are
> diff
> we assume that data transformation is required and we look if the
> interfaces
> are marked remotable, if not we throw a warning msg to alert that there
> could be an unexpected behaviour in data transformation.
>
> OPTION 4: In the DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method, just
> check if the source and target interface is remotable OR if the source and
> target datatypes are different. If any one condition is satisfied then we
> assume that data transformation is required.
>
> Apart from the above mentioned issue, do we need to make such checks for
> ws
> binding as well OR do we need this checks for all kind of bindings. Like
> to
> know people's view on this regard. Thanks.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>

Hi Ramkumar

When I originally raised the JIRA I had imagined the solution would be your
OPTION 1. So that we get a warning that at least tells the user that they
are doing something odd. In my case it took me a while to work out what the
problem was so it would have been nice if the runtime had at least said "you
are dong something strange are you sure you want to do this".

I hadn't imagines that we could introduce a data transformation in this
case. Is there code in there that tries and optimizes away the remote
binding if it detects that the components are running locally?

Simon