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
<luckbr1...@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
d...@tuscany.apach
e.org
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Dan Becker <dan.o.bec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Dan Becker <dan.o.bec...@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/
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: pic28443.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
