Hi Reza, Thank you for your interest in trying out SPL your comments are greatly appreciated.
> For example bean.attr1 should be translated internally to bean.getAttr1(). I think this is a good idea and do not think it will be very hard to implement. >anchor classes are kind of dynamically generated classes, and I can not specify their class names This one is a bit tricky because a policy has a 2 phase life-cycle in phase 1 the policy is validated syntatically and semantically and an *executable* is generated and cached. In phase 2 the policy is evaluated using the input parameters. Not knowing the class name in phase 1 will naturally be a problem so we would have to be able to support a way to evaluate on the fly...this may require some fundamental changes. We are always looking for folks to participate in our project so if you have the cycles you could just provide us with a patch for #1 and I can check it in. I have cc'ed this email to the community for others to comment Thanks! Neeraj ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you" Neeraj Joshi WebSphere XD - Compute Grid AIM, IBM Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Reza Asadollahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/21/2008 04:07 PM To David L Kaminsky/Raleigh/[EMAIL PROTECTED], Neeraj Joshi/Durham/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Subject Autonomic Computing with Imperius Hi, I am doing research in the area of autonomic computing in the University of Waterloo Canada. As part of my research, I was intending to develop an implementation of CIM-SPL, and hopefully, I found that you did it. Thank you so much. You did a great job, and I guess Imperius can be the leader of policy engines in this area. I used the current version of Imperius in my project and I found a few limitations in the application. I would like to share them with you and get your suggestions about them. 1. A policy can not access the anchor class private attributes via their getter and setter methods, and the attributes should be defined “public” instead. Yes, I found that it is possible to call a getter method in the “condition” section but it is more interesting to read and write attributes in an expression-like language. For example bean.attr1 should be translated internally to bean.getAttr1(). The idea of Java EE Expression Language in terms of using high-level expressions instead of java-like code could be helpful in this context as well. 2. The objects that I pass to the policies as anchor classes are kind of dynamically generated classes, and I can not specify their class names in the policy file (they don’t extend a specific super class or interface). Hence, it is not possible to work with the anchor objects in the policies as sensors and effectors. For example, I have a dynamically-generated java bean and I know that it would have have an attribute named “attr1”, but I don’t know its class (and it is not important at all); however, I would like to able to use that java bean in the policy. To overcome this problem, I guess it would be enough for Imperius to work with the passed java beans by reflection. I believe that addressing the mentioned concerns in Imperius will significantly improve its feature set and facilitate its usage in different adaptation environments. I would like to thank you for your attention to my points, and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Best Regards, Reza Asadollahi
