I've been thinking about these things a bit during my spare time (I've been consulting in North Carolina, and speaking at NoFluffJustStuff outside Boston).
Some of my ideas are going up on the proposals page. I think we definately need to split the Registry interface in two: a simplified version used by client code, and an extended version (RegsitryInternal, perhaps?) that is visible to some of the other machinery inside HiveMind, and would allow for things like pre-loading services and configuration points, and doing other validations. -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components Creator, HiveMind http://howardlewisship.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 7:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Validation of the configuration (the sum of all > loaded hivemodules) > > > > How about widening/extending some interfaces of the API > in such a way that it would be possible to perform the > validating ourselfes? > E.g. extend Registry with a >List getModules()< returning > a List of Modules and so forth. > Returned objects should be read-only, so that the internals > can not be corrupted. > > -----Luke Blanshard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ----- > > To: [email protected] > From: Luke Blanshard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 23.04.2004 18:46 > Subject: Re: Validation of the configuration (the sum of all loaded > hivemodules) > > I was thinking client side, not server side. On the server, I > would do it as a special diagnostic service, accessible via > servlet or ejb. I might actually do it that way on the client > too, though it would be nice to have a separate program. > > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:55:22 +0200 > >From: "Johan Lindquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Validation of the configuration (the sum of all > loaded hivemodules) > >To: [email protected] > > > >Curious - how would you specify the class-path in such a case? > If you > >deploy the registry as part of an ear, a lot of magic is done by > the > >container ... Or would the tool look at the ear (in this example) > and > >process it accordingly to construct the correct path? > > > >Johan > > > >On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:42:31 -0500, Luke Blanshard > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > > >> I'm with Stefan here. For complex environments, it would be a > >> real help to be able to run a little program that did a sanity > >> check on the classpath and configuration. HiveMind has all the > >> information needed to do a simple validation of all services in a > >> registry, by forcing instantiation of all of them. > >> > >> Luke > >> > >> ---- Original message ---- > >>> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:38:32 +0200 > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Subject: RE: Validation of the configuration (the sum of all > >> loaded hivemodules) > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> > >>> > >>> Hmm, depends on the definition of unit test. I do not think that > >>> this is what unit tests are for. I would call such tests > integration > >>> tests, which put all pieces together and test if they behave as > >>> excpected. Although you might use JUnit for doing that. > >>> With unit test I would like to test my "business" components, not > >>> neccessarily the components construction done by HiveMind. > >>> > >>> So, in principle you are right. With a good test coverage this > would > >>> not be necessary. But why not supporting it with a (optional) > >> validation? > >>> > >>> -----"Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ----- > >>> > >>> To: <[email protected]> > >>> From: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Date: 23.04.2004 13:26 > >>> Subject: RE: Validation of the configuration (the sum of all > loaded > >>> hivemodules) > >>> > >>> At the risk of sounding flip ... isn't this what unit tests > are for? > >>> There's a finite limit to what > >>> HiveMind can, in fact, validate without actually executing the > >> application. > >>> HiveMind should make > >>> your testing easier (or, in fact, possible) ... not replace the > >> need for > >>> testing. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Howard M. Lewis Ship > >>> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant > >>> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components > >>> Creator, HiveMind > >>> http://howardlewisship.com > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:49 AM > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Validation of the configuration (the sum of all > >>>> loaded hivemodules) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> we are using HiveMind as our component framework. Our > >> application is a > >>>> almost typical client/server application. > >>>> As our application grows and grows we would like to have some > >>>> support for > >>>> validating the configuration. I would like to ask the > >>>> registry to validate: > >>>> - point all implementations to existing service points > >>>> - same for contributions/configuration points > >>>> - same for schema/schema-id > >>>> - same for .. (are there any others?) > >>>> - are all referenced classes available (not neccessarily load > >>>> them), so far > >>>> HiveMind is aware of knowing that some attribute relates to a > >> class. > >>>> > >>>> Sure I could parse myself all the hivemodules but .. > >>>> How about contributing? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Stefan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >you too? > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
