Re: Investigating assignment of endpoint information to the domain model was: Re: Domain/Contribution Repository was: Re: SCA contribution packaging schemes: was: SCA runtimes

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino]

Simon Laws wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:



On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Simon Laws wrote:

Thanks Sebastien, Hopefully some insight on the puzzle in line...

Simon

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

wrote:


I apologize in advance for the inline comment puzzle, but you had
started with a long email in the first place :)


no problem at all. Thanks for you detailed response.

snip...



I'm happy with workspace.configuration.impl. However applying default
binding configuration to bindings in a composition doesn't have much

to

do with the workspace so I'd suggest to push it down to assembly,
possible if you use a signature like I suggested above.


Ok I can do that.



B) The algorithm (A) that calculates service endpoints based on node

default

binding configurations depends on knowing the protocol that a

particular

binding is configured to use.

That part I don't get :) We could toy with the idea that SCA bindings
are not the right level of abstraction and that we need a transport
concept (or scheme or protocol, e.g. http) and the ability for

multiple

bindings (e.g. ws, atom, json) to share the same transport... But

that's

a whole different discussion IMO.

Can we keep this simply on a binding basis? and have a node declare

this:


  
  
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:/services"/>


Then the  declaration can provide the default

config

for all binding.ws on that node,  for all

binding.json,

 for all binding.atom etc. As you can see in this

example,

different bindings could use different ports... so, trying to share a
common transport will probably be less functional if it forces the
bindings sharing that transport to share a single port.


This is OK until you bring policy into the picture. A policy might

affect

the scheme a binding relies on so you may more realistically end up

with..


  
  
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
https://localhost:443/services"/>

http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:/services"/>


And any particular, for example,  binding.ws might required to be

defaulted

with "http://...";, "https://.."; or even not defaulted at all if it's

going

to use "jms:...".  The issue with policies of course is that they are

not,

currently, applied until later on when the bindings are actually

activated.

So just looking at the model you can tell it has associated

intents/policy

but not what the implications are for the endpoint.

We can ignore this in the first instance I guess and run with the
restriction that you can't apply policy that affects the scheme to

bindings

inside the domain. But I'd be interested on you thoughts on the future
solution none the less. You will notice from the code that I haven't
actually done anything inside the bindings but just proposed that we

will

have to ask binding specific questions at some point during URL

creation.
Well, I think you're raising an interesting issue, but it seems to be
independent of any of this node business, more like a general issue with
the impact of policies on specified binding URIs.


I agree that if the binding URI were completed based on the processing of
the "build" phase then this conversation is independent of the default
values provided by nodes. This is not currently the case AFAIUI. The policy
model is built and matched at build phase but the policy sets are not
applied until the binding runtime is created. For example, the
Axis2ServiceProvider constructor is involved in setting the binding URI at
the moment.  So in having an extension I was proposing a new place where
binding specific operations related to generating the URI could be housed
independently of the processing that happens when the providers are created.
In this way we would kick off this URL processing earlier on.



If I understand correctly, and I'm taking the store tutorial Catalog
component as an example to illustrate the issue:


  
http://somehost:8080/catalog"/>
  


would in fact translate to:


  
https://localhost:443/catalog"/>
  


assuming in this example that "myEncryptionIntent" is realized using
HTTPS on port 443.

Is that the issue you're talking about?


Yes, that's the issue, i.e. the binding specific code that makes this so
is not running during the build phase. I.e. the URI isn't resolved by
having a value poked in from outside the binding, rather the implications of
the policy set are processed by binding specific code and the URI results.

Another, non-policy related, issue has also come to mind


  
http://test#wsdl.port(CatalogService/CatalogPort)"
/>
  


Particularly where where the port location is relative.  Again the code
that applies WSDL details to the bin

Re: Investigating assignment of endpoint information to the domain model was: Re: Domain/Contribution Repository was: Re: SCA contribution packaging schemes: was: SCA runtimes

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino]

Simon Laws wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


Simon Laws wrote:

Thanks Sebastien, Hopefully some insight on the puzzle in line...

Simon

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <

[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

wrote:


I apologize in advance for the inline comment puzzle, but you had
started with a long email in the first place :)


no problem at all. Thanks for you detailed response.

snip...



I'm happy with workspace.configuration.impl. However applying default
binding configuration to bindings in a composition doesn't have much to
do with the workspace so I'd suggest to push it down to assembly,
possible if you use a signature like I suggested above.


Ok I can do that.



B) The algorithm (A) that calculates service endpoints based on node

default

binding configurations depends on knowing the protocol that a

particular

binding is configured to use.

That part I don't get :) We could toy with the idea that SCA bindings
are not the right level of abstraction and that we need a transport
concept (or scheme or protocol, e.g. http) and the ability for multiple
bindings (e.g. ws, atom, json) to share the same transport... But

that's

a whole different discussion IMO.

Can we keep this simply on a binding basis? and have a node declare

this:


  
  
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:/services"/>


Then the  declaration can provide the default

config

for all binding.ws on that node,  for all binding.json

,

 for all binding.atom etc. As you can see in this

example,

different bindings could use different ports... so, trying to share a
common transport will probably be less functional if it forces the
bindings sharing that transport to share a single port.


This is OK until you bring policy into the picture. A policy might

affect

the scheme a binding relies on so you may more realistically end up

with..


  
  
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
https://localhost:443/services"/>

http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:/services"/>


And any particular, for example,  binding.ws might required to be

defaulted

with "http://...";, "https://.."; or even not defaulted at all if it's

going

to use "jms:...".  The issue with policies of course is that they are

not,

currently, applied until later on when the bindings are actually

activated.

So just looking at the model you can tell it has associated

intents/policy

but not what the implications are for the endpoint.

We can ignore this in the first instance I guess and run with the
restriction that you can't apply policy that affects the scheme to

bindings

inside the domain. But I'd be interested on you thoughts on the future
solution none the less. You will notice from the code that I haven't
actually done anything inside the bindings but just proposed that we

will

have to ask binding specific questions at some point during URL

creation.
Well, I think you're raising an interesting issue, but it seems to be
independent of any of this node business, more like a general issue with
the impact of policies on specified binding URIs.



I agree that if the binding URI were completed based on the processing of
the "build" phase then this conversation is independent of the default
values provided by nodes. This is not currently the case AFAIUI. The policy
model is built and matched at build phase but the policy sets are not
applied until the binding runtime is created. For example, the
Axis2ServiceProvider constructor is involved in setting the binding URI at
the moment.  So in having an extension I was proposing a new place where
binding specific operations related to generating the URI could be housed
independently of the processing that happens when the providers are created.
In this way we would kick off this URL processing earlier on.



OK (taking the policy processing aside), you're right that the 
determination of the binding URI should not be done at all in the 
Axis2ServiceProvider.


I would suggest the following:

- Recognize that this is a manifestation of a bigger issue (and the code 
in Axis2ServiceProvider a hack to work around it). There is no extension 
point for build-time processing of models at the moment. We have plug 
points for read(), resolve() but nothing for build().


- Add a build( model) method to ArtifactProcessor.

- Invoke that method from CompositeBuilder() or one the related classes 
in the builder package.


- Move the code responsible for the determination of the URI of a 
binding to ArtifactProcessor.read(), resolve(), build() or a combination 
of these as most convenient.


- Review the current policy processing and make sure that policies are 
processed in the right stages, I won't discuss this here as I believe 
that there's another discussion on policy applications currently going on.



If I understand correctly, an

Re: Investigating assignment of endpoint information to the domain model was: Re: Domain/Contribution Repository was: Re: SCA contribution packaging schemes: was: SCA runtimes

[Simon Laws]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Simon Laws wrote:
> > > Thanks Sebastien, Hopefully some insight on the puzzle in line...
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I apologize in advance for the inline comment puzzle, but you had
> > >> started with a long email in the first place :)
> > >
> > >
> > > no problem at all. Thanks for you detailed response.
> > >
> > > snip...
> > >
> > >
> > >> I'm happy with workspace.configuration.impl. However applying default
> > >> binding configuration to bindings in a composition doesn't have much
> > to
> > >> do with the workspace so I'd suggest to push it down to assembly,
> > >> possible if you use a signature like I suggested above.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok I can do that.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> B) The algorithm (A) that calculates service endpoints based on node
> > >> default
> > >>> binding configurations depends on knowing the protocol that a
> > particular
> > >>> binding is configured to use.
> > >> That part I don't get :) We could toy with the idea that SCA bindings
> > >> are not the right level of abstraction and that we need a transport
> > >> concept (or scheme or protocol, e.g. http) and the ability for
> > multiple
> > >> bindings (e.g. ws, atom, json) to share the same transport... But
> > that's
> > >> a whole different discussion IMO.
> > >>
> > >> Can we keep this simply on a binding basis? and have a node declare
> > this:
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>   
> > >>   
> > >> http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> > >> http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> > >> http://localhost:/services"/>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> Then the  declaration can provide the default
> > config
> > >> for all binding.ws on that node,  for all
> > binding.json,
> > >>  for all binding.atom etc. As you can see in this
> > example,
> > >> different bindings could use different ports... so, trying to share a
> > >> common transport will probably be less functional if it forces the
> > >> bindings sharing that transport to share a single port.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is OK until you bring policy into the picture. A policy might
> > affect
> > > the scheme a binding relies on so you may more realistically end up
> > with..
> > >
> > > 
> > >   
> > >   
> > > http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> > >  > > uri="https://localhost:443/services"/>
> > >
> > > http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> > > http://localhost:/services"/>
> > > 
> > >
> > > And any particular, for example,  binding.ws might required to be
> > defaulted
> > > with "http://...";, "https://.."; or even not defaulted at all if it's
> > going
> > > to use "jms:...".  The issue with policies of course is that they are
> > not,
> > > currently, applied until later on when the bindings are actually
> > activated.
> > > So just looking at the model you can tell it has associated
> > intents/policy
> > > but not what the implications are for the endpoint.
> > >
> > > We can ignore this in the first instance I guess and run with the
> > > restriction that you can't apply policy that affects the scheme to
> > bindings
> > > inside the domain. But I'd be interested on you thoughts on the future
> > > solution none the less. You will notice from the code that I haven't
> > > actually done anything inside the bindings but just proposed that we
> > will
> > > have to ask binding specific questions at some point during URL
> > creation.
> > >
> >
> > Well, I think you're raising an interesting issue, but it seems to be
> > independent of any of this node business, more like a general issue with
> > the impact of policies on specified binding URIs.
>
>
> I agree that if the binding URI were completed based on the processing of
> the "build" phase then this conversation is independent of the default
> values provided by nodes. This is not currently the case AFAIUI. The policy
> model is built and matched at build phase but the policy sets are not
> applied until the binding runtime is created. For example, the
> Axis2ServiceProvider constructor is involved in setting the binding URI at
> the moment.  So in having an extension I was proposing a new place where
> binding specific operations related to generating the URI could be housed
> independently of the processing that happens when the providers are created.
> In this way we would kick off this URL processing earlier on.
>
>
> >
> > If I understand correctly, and I'm taking the store tutorial Catalog
> > component as an example to illustrate the issue:
> >
> > 
> >   
> > http://somehost:8080/catalog"/>
> >   
> > 
> >
> > would in fact translate to:
> >
> > 
> >   
> > https://localhost:443/catalog"/>
> >   
> > 
> >
> > assuming in this example that "myEncryptionIntent" is realized using
> > HTTPS o

Re: Investigating assignment of endpoint information to the domain model was: Re: Domain/Contribution Repository was: Re: SCA contribution packaging schemes: was: SCA runtimes

[Simon Laws]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Simon Laws wrote:
> > Thanks Sebastien, Hopefully some insight on the puzzle in line...
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I apologize in advance for the inline comment puzzle, but you had
> >> started with a long email in the first place :)
> >
> >
> > no problem at all. Thanks for you detailed response.
> >
> > snip...
> >
> >
> >> I'm happy with workspace.configuration.impl. However applying default
> >> binding configuration to bindings in a composition doesn't have much to
> >> do with the workspace so I'd suggest to push it down to assembly,
> >> possible if you use a signature like I suggested above.
> >
> >
> > Ok I can do that.
> >
> >
> >>> B) The algorithm (A) that calculates service endpoints based on node
> >> default
> >>> binding configurations depends on knowing the protocol that a
> particular
> >>> binding is configured to use.
> >> That part I don't get :) We could toy with the idea that SCA bindings
> >> are not the right level of abstraction and that we need a transport
> >> concept (or scheme or protocol, e.g. http) and the ability for multiple
> >> bindings (e.g. ws, atom, json) to share the same transport... But
> that's
> >> a whole different discussion IMO.
> >>
> >> Can we keep this simply on a binding basis? and have a node declare
> this:
> >>
> >> 
> >>   
> >>   
> >> http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> >> http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> >> http://localhost:/services"/>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Then the  declaration can provide the default
> config
> >> for all binding.ws on that node,  for all binding.json
> ,
> >>  for all binding.atom etc. As you can see in this
> example,
> >> different bindings could use different ports... so, trying to share a
> >> common transport will probably be less functional if it forces the
> >> bindings sharing that transport to share a single port.
> >
> >
> > This is OK until you bring policy into the picture. A policy might
> affect
> > the scheme a binding relies on so you may more realistically end up
> with..
> >
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> >  > uri="https://localhost:443/services"/>
> >
> > http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> > http://localhost:/services"/>
> > 
> >
> > And any particular, for example,  binding.ws might required to be
> defaulted
> > with "http://...";, "https://.."; or even not defaulted at all if it's
> going
> > to use "jms:...".  The issue with policies of course is that they are
> not,
> > currently, applied until later on when the bindings are actually
> activated.
> > So just looking at the model you can tell it has associated
> intents/policy
> > but not what the implications are for the endpoint.
> >
> > We can ignore this in the first instance I guess and run with the
> > restriction that you can't apply policy that affects the scheme to
> bindings
> > inside the domain. But I'd be interested on you thoughts on the future
> > solution none the less. You will notice from the code that I haven't
> > actually done anything inside the bindings but just proposed that we
> will
> > have to ask binding specific questions at some point during URL
> creation.
> >
>
> Well, I think you're raising an interesting issue, but it seems to be
> independent of any of this node business, more like a general issue with
> the impact of policies on specified binding URIs.


I agree that if the binding URI were completed based on the processing of
the "build" phase then this conversation is independent of the default
values provided by nodes. This is not currently the case AFAIUI. The policy
model is built and matched at build phase but the policy sets are not
applied until the binding runtime is created. For example, the
Axis2ServiceProvider constructor is involved in setting the binding URI at
the moment.  So in having an extension I was proposing a new place where
binding specific operations related to generating the URI could be housed
independently of the processing that happens when the providers are created.
In this way we would kick off this URL processing earlier on.


>
> If I understand correctly, and I'm taking the store tutorial Catalog
> component as an example to illustrate the issue:
>
> 
>   
> http://somehost:8080/catalog"/>
>   
> 
>
> would in fact translate to:
>
> 
>   
> https://localhost:443/catalog"/>
>   
> 
>
> assuming in this example that "myEncryptionIntent" is realized using
> HTTPS on port 443.
>
> Is that the issue you're talking about?


Yes, that's the issue, i.e. the binding specific code that makes this so is
not running during the build phase. I.e. the URI isn't resolved by having a
value poked in from outside the binding, rather the implications of the
policy set are processed by binding specific code and the URI results.

Anoth

Re: Investigating assignment of endpoint information to the domain model was: Re: Domain/Contribution Repository was: Re: SCA contribution packaging schemes: was: SCA runtimes

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino]

Simon Laws wrote:

Thanks Sebastien, Hopefully some insight on the puzzle in line...

Simon

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


I apologize in advance for the inline comment puzzle, but you had
started with a long email in the first place :)



no problem at all. Thanks for you detailed response.

snip...



I'm happy with workspace.configuration.impl. However applying default
binding configuration to bindings in a composition doesn't have much to
do with the workspace so I'd suggest to push it down to assembly,
possible if you use a signature like I suggested above.



Ok I can do that.



B) The algorithm (A) that calculates service endpoints based on node

default

binding configurations depends on knowing the protocol that a particular
binding is configured to use.

That part I don't get :) We could toy with the idea that SCA bindings
are not the right level of abstraction and that we need a transport
concept (or scheme or protocol, e.g. http) and the ability for multiple
bindings (e.g. ws, atom, json) to share the same transport... But that's
a whole different discussion IMO.

Can we keep this simply on a binding basis? and have a node declare this:


  
  
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:/services"/>


Then the  declaration can provide the default config
for all binding.ws on that node,  for all binding.json,
 for all binding.atom etc. As you can see in this example,
different bindings could use different ports... so, trying to share a
common transport will probably be less functional if it forces the
bindings sharing that transport to share a single port.



This is OK until you bring policy into the picture. A policy might affect
the scheme a binding relies on so you may more realistically end up with..


  
  
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
https://localhost:443/services"/>

http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:/services"/>


And any particular, for example,  binding.ws might required to be defaulted
with "http://...";, "https://.."; or even not defaulted at all if it's going
to use "jms:...".  The issue with policies of course is that they are not,
currently, applied until later on when the bindings are actually activated.
So just looking at the model you can tell it has associated intents/policy
but not what the implications are for the endpoint.

We can ignore this in the first instance I guess and run with the
restriction that you can't apply policy that affects the scheme to bindings
inside the domain. But I'd be interested on you thoughts on the future
solution none the less. You will notice from the code that I haven't
actually done anything inside the bindings but just proposed that we will
have to ask binding specific questions at some point during URL creation.



Well, I think you're raising an interesting issue, but it seems to be 
independent of any of this node business, more like a general issue with 
the impact of policies on specified binding URIs.


If I understand correctly, and I'm taking the store tutorial Catalog 
component as an example to illustrate the issue:



  
http://somehost:8080/catalog"/>
  


would in fact translate to:


  
https://localhost:443/catalog"/>
  


assuming in this example that "myEncryptionIntent" is realized using 
HTTPS on port 443.


Is that the issue you're talking about?
--
Jean-Sebastien

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Investigating assignment of endpoint information to the domain model was: Re: Domain/Contribution Repository was: Re: SCA contribution packaging schemes: was: SCA runtimes

[Simon Laws]

Thanks Sebastien, Hopefully some insight on the puzzle in line...

Simon

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I apologize in advance for the inline comment puzzle, but you had
> started with a long email in the first place :)


no problem at all. Thanks for you detailed response.

snip...


> I'm happy with workspace.configuration.impl. However applying default
> binding configuration to bindings in a composition doesn't have much to
> do with the workspace so I'd suggest to push it down to assembly,
> possible if you use a signature like I suggested above.


Ok I can do that.


>
> >
> > B) The algorithm (A) that calculates service endpoints based on node
> default
> > binding configurations depends on knowing the protocol that a particular
> > binding is configured to use.
>
> That part I don't get :) We could toy with the idea that SCA bindings
> are not the right level of abstraction and that we need a transport
> concept (or scheme or protocol, e.g. http) and the ability for multiple
> bindings (e.g. ws, atom, json) to share the same transport... But that's
> a whole different discussion IMO.
>
> Can we keep this simply on a binding basis? and have a node declare this:
>
> 
>   
>   
> http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> http://localhost:1234/services"/>
> http://localhost:/services"/>
> 
>
> Then the  declaration can provide the default config
> for all binding.ws on that node,  for all binding.json,
>  for all binding.atom etc. As you can see in this example,
> different bindings could use different ports... so, trying to share a
> common transport will probably be less functional if it forces the
> bindings sharing that transport to share a single port.


This is OK until you bring policy into the picture. A policy might affect
the scheme a binding relies on so you may more realistically end up with..


  
  
http://localhost:1234/services"/>
https://localhost:443/services"/>

http://localhost:1234/services"/>
http://localhost:/services"/>


And any particular, for example,  binding.ws might required to be defaulted
with "http://...";, "https://.."; or even not defaulted at all if it's going
to use "jms:...".  The issue with policies of course is that they are not,
currently, applied until later on when the bindings are actually activated.
So just looking at the model you can tell it has associated intents/policy
but not what the implications are for the endpoint.

We can ignore this in the first instance I guess and run with the
restriction that you can't apply policy that affects the scheme to bindings
inside the domain. But I'd be interested on you thoughts on the future
solution none the less. You will notice from the code that I haven't
actually done anything inside the bindings but just proposed that we will
have to ask binding specific questions at some point during URL creation.

Re: Investigating assignment of endpoint information to the domain model was: Re: Domain/Contribution Repository was: Re: SCA contribution packaging schemes: was: SCA runtimes

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino]

I apologize in advance for the inline comment puzzle, but you had 
started with a long email in the first place :)


Simon Laws wrote:

And here's the separate thread following on from [1]... I'm looking at

what we can do with any endpoint information we have prior to the point at
which a composite is deployed to a node. This is an alternative to
(replacement for?) having the Tuscany runtime go and query for endpoint
information after it has been started. I have been summarizing info here
[2][3].  Looking at this I need to do something like...

- associate composites with nodes/apply physical binding
defaults/propagate physical addresses based on domain level wiring

   1. Read in node model - which provides
  1. Mapping of composite to node
  2. Default configuration of bindings at that node, e.g. the
  root URL required for binding.ws


+1


   2. For each composite in the domain (I'm assuming I have access to
   the domain level composite model)
  1. Find, from the node model, the node which will host the
  composite
  2. for each service in the composite
 1. If there are no bindings for the service
1. Create a default binding configured with the
default URI from the node model


Create a  configured with the URI found on the 
 from the node configuration. Same as your else branch 
"Take the default binding configuration and apply it to the binding".



2. We maybe should only configure the URI if we
know there is a remote reference.


Maybe later :) I think that always configuring the URI for now is better 
than starting to couple binding configuration with reference resolution.



2. else
1. find each binding in the service
   1. Take the default binding configuration
   and apply it to the binding


+1


   2. What to do about URLs as they may be
   either
  1. Unset
 1. Apply algorithm from Assembly
 Spec 1.7.2


+1


  2. Set relatively
 1. Apply algorithm from Assembly



  Spec 1.7.2
+1


  3. Set absolutely
 1. Assume it is set correctly?


Yes


  4. Set implicitly (from WSDL
  information)
 1. Assume it is set correctly?
3. The above is similar to what goes
 during compositeConfiguration in the build phase


+1



  3. For each reference in the composite
 1. Look for any targets that cannot be satisfied within
 the current node (need an interface to call through which scans the 
domain)
 2. Find the service model for this target
 3. Do policy and binding matching
 4. For matching bindings ensure that the binding URL is
 unset and set with information from the target service
 5. The above is also similar to what happens during the
 build phase
 4. Domain Level Autowiring also needs to be taken into
  account
  5. Wire by impl that uses domain wide references also need to
  be considered


IMO (3), (4), (5) should be taken completely separately. Resolution of 
references inside a node, across nodes, or when nodes provide default 
binding configuration or not can just always work the same way:
a) find the target service inside the set of composites included in the 
domain

b) configure the reference from the resolved service configuration.



Referring to the builder code now is feels like 2.2 above is a new "model
enhancement" step that could reuse (some of) the function in
CompositeConfigurationBuilderImpl.configureComponents but with extra
binding specific feature to ensure that URLs are set correctly.


Yes exactly.



2.3 looks very like CompositeWireBuilder.


Which should continue to work as-is :)



My quandry at the moment is that the process has a dependency on the node
description so it doesn't fit in the builders where they are at the moment.
It feels like we need a separate module. So comments about whether any of
this makes sense and, if so, where I should put it are welcome.



If that helps: The dependency on NodeImplementation is not really 
necessary, as the only info you need is the list of Binding objects from 
the node description.


Something like that should work:

configure(Composite composite, List defaultBindings);



[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28299.html
[2]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Contribution+Processing
[3] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Runtime+Phases



I have some code [1] for steps 1, 2.1 and 2.2 above and I want to move it
out of my sandbox to see how it fits. Two questions

A) I have a relatively stand alone algorithm [2] that populates service
binding URIs (similar to the CompositeConfigurationBuilder and I would 

Re: Investigating assignment of endpoint information to the domain model was: Re: Domain/Contribution Repository was: Re: SCA contribution packaging schemes: was: SCA runtimes

[Simon Laws]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Venkata Krishnan wrote:
> > > > It would also be good to have some sort of 'ping' function that
> > > could be
> > > > used to check if a service is receptive to requests.  Infact I
> > > wonder if the
> > > > Workspace Admin should also be able to test this sort of a ping per
> > > > binding.  Is this something that can go into the section (B) .. or
> > > is this
> > > > out of place ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Good idea, I'd put it section (D). A node runtime needs to provide a
> > > way
> > > to monitor its status.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Sebastien
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Hi Sebastien
> >
> > I see you have started to check in code related to steps A and B. I have
> > time this week to start helping on this and thought I would start looking at
> > the back end of B and moving into C but don't want to tread on you toes.
> >
> > I made some code to experiment with before I went on holiday so it's not
> > integrated with your code (it just uses the Workspace interface). What I was
> > starting to look at was resolving a domain level composite which includes
> > unresolved composites. I.e. I built a composite which includes the
> > deployable composites for a series of contributions and am learning about
> > resolution and re-resolution.
> >
> > I'm not doing anything about composite selection for deployment just
> > yet. That will come from the node model/gui/command line. I just want to
> > work out how we get the domain resolution going in this context.
> >
> > If you are not already doing this I'll carry on experimenting in my
> > sandbox for a little while longer and spawn of a separate thread to discuss.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > And here's the separate thread following on from [1]... I'm looking at
> what we can do with any endpoint information we have prior to the point at
> which a composite is deployed to a node. This is an alternative to
> (replacement for?) having the Tuscany runtime go and query for endpoint
> information after it has been started. I have been summarizing info here
> [2][3].  Looking at this I need to do something like...
>
> - associate composites with nodes/apply physical binding
> defaults/propagate physical addresses based on domain level wiring
>
>1. Read in node model - which provides
>   1. Mapping of composite to node
>   2. Default configuration of bindings at that node, e.g. the
>   root URL required for binding.ws
>2. For each composite in the domain (I'm assuming I have access to
>the domain level composite model)
>   1. Find, from the node model, the node which will host the
>   composite
>   2. for each service in the composite
>  1. If there are no bindings for the service
> 1. Create a default binding configured with the
> default URI from the node model
> 2. We maybe should only configure the URI if we
> know there is a remote reference.
> 2. else
> 1. find each binding in the service
>1. Take the default binding configuration
>and apply it to the binding
>2. What to do about URLs as they may be
>either
>   1. Unset
>  1. Apply algorithm from Assembly
>  Spec 1.7.2
>   2. Set relatively
>  1. Apply algorithm from Assembly
>  Spec 1.7.2
>   3. Set absolutely
>  1. Assume it is set correctly?
>   4. Set implicitly (from WSDL
>   information)
>  1. Assume it is set correctly?
> 3. The above is similar to what goes
>  during compositeConfiguration in the build phase
>   3. For each reference in the composite
>  1. Look for any targets that cannot be satisfied within
>  the current node (need an interface to call through which scans the 
> domain)
>  2. Find the service model for this target
>  3. Do policy and binding matching
>  4. For matching bindings ensure that the binding URL is
>  unset and set with information from the target service
>  5. The above is also similar to what happens during the
>  build phase
>  4. Domain Level Autowiring also needs to be taken into
>   account
>   5. Wire by impl that uses domain wide references also need to
>   be considered
>
> Referring to the builder code now is feels like 2.2 above is a new "model
> enhancemen