Hi Daniel,
According to SDO 2.1 spec, a data object tree does not necessarily need to have
a data graph object. Below is the javadoc for getDataGraph() from
DataObject.java.
/**
* Returns the [EMAIL PROTECTED] DataGraph data graph} for this object or
null if there isn't one.
* @return th
Anyone else want to add anything here ?
I'll move this to the Apache Incubator wiki sometime soon, as tomorrow
is the deadline for the reports.
On 5/8/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I updated the "Top issue?" section.
Simon
Luciano Resende wrote:
> Thinking a little bit more abo
How am I supposed to run the sample ant builds ? Here are the steps I did :
1.build the distributions
2.unzip the distributions to a temporary directory
3.go to inside the distributions sample/calculator directory (either
binary/source)
4.issue an "ant" command
run:
[java] Exception in thre
Simon,
Comments and answers inline.
Simon Nash wrote:
Here are some questions and observations that I came across while
converting the Axis2 binding to the new SPIs.
1. The binding.ws SCDL element is always resolved to Axis2.
What should be the mechanism for making this pluggable
for
[snip]
Simon Nash wrote:
1. BindingImpl is in org.apache.tuscany.assembly.impl but is
exposed as a subclassing extension point for binding extensions.
I removed BindingImpl as it is not a subclassing extension point. It was
there as a base class for SCABindingImpl, but several of us seem t
Hi Frank,
I'm assuming with Fuhwei's example in 1254, you don't need an example
from me anymore. I'm going to go back through these notes and start a
new thread with things that still need to be fixed.
Thanks for all of your help so far,
-Chris
On 5/8/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Hi, Mark.
Sorry for not responding to your questions promptly as some of us are
attending JavaOne.
I added the two methods back to the ScopedImplementationProvider interface
so that you can move forward. You should be able to test if the
component.getImplementation() instanceof ScopedImpleme
Hi SDO developers and users,
I'm happy to announce that the Tuscany SDO/Java project now (as of
revision 536331) contains a functionally complete implementation of the
SDO 2.1 specification! Thanks to everyone who contributed to this
achievement and especially in getting the final functionality
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Fuhwei Lwo updated TUSCANY-1254:
Attachment: OpenTypeTest.java
open2.xsd
open.xsd
To reproduce the
Codegen on a type inheriting from a type in different namespace will result in
mis-mapping the feature IDs
--
Key: TUSCANY-1254
URL: https://issues.apache.org/
Hi Frank,
I finally narrowed down Chris's problem. I have created a test case to
reproduce his problem with fewer files. I will create a JIRA with my test case
and explain what the problem is. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the
codegen code well enough to fix the code.
Fuhwei
Frank Bud
Hi Frank,
I've tested your fixes and they work great. Thanks. I'll put together
a zip file for you soon.
Thanks,
-Chris
On 5/8/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some of the bugs mentioned below (#1 and #3 for sure) have been fixed.
Can you retry with the latest code and see what's
Here are some questions and observations that I came across while
converting the Axis2 binding to the new SPIs.
1. The binding.ws SCDL element is always resolved to Axis2.
What should be the mechanism for making this pluggable
for other binding.ws implementations liske CXF?
2. Before th
Here are a few issues with observing the convention that I have
discovered so far:
1. BindingImpl is in org.apache.tuscany.assembly.impl but is
exposed as a subclassing extension point for binding extensions.
2. AbstractInvocationHandler and MessageImpl are in the
org.apache.tuscany.invocat
Some of the bugs mentioned below (#1 and #3 for sure) have been fixed.
Can you retry with the latest code and see what's still broken. Can you
provide a zip file with everything needed to reproduce the problem(s)?
Thanks,
Frank.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/08/2007 06:46:51 PM:
> Hi,
>
> He
Hi,
Here's another issue with the packageDescriptor. When I set the
softwareID attribute on the packageIdentity I get the following
exception when saving:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.String
at
org.apache.tuscany.sdo.util.resource.SDOXMLResourceImpl
Simon Nash wrote:
These changes are an improvement, but they don't fully address my
concerns. It is still necessary for the xxxBindingProviderFactory
to extend from xxxBindingImpl, which itself extends from BindingImpl.
I think it would be better to avoid the need to extend from
BindingImpl, whi
[snip]
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
ant elder wrote:
I wondered if we should get rid of ProviderActivator and just have
ServiceBindingProvider, ReferenceBindingProvider and
ImplementationProvider
explicitly define the start/stop methods.
+1, good idea.
Ju
These changes are an improvement, but they don't fully address my
concerns. It is still necessary for the xxxBindingProviderFactory
to extend from xxxBindingImpl, which itself extends from BindingImpl.
I think it would be better to avoid the need to extend from
BindingImpl, which is an implementa
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
ant elder wrote:
I wondered if we should get rid of ProviderActivator and just have
ServiceBindingProvider, ReferenceBindingProvider and
ImplementationProvider
explicitly define the start/stop methods.
+1, good idea.
Also, I'm wondering if having BindingProvi
I have started to take a look at the errors in sca/itest/spec-api. I don't
have a cause but I do have a couple of observations to share. First, an NPE
is occurring during the wire processing within:
SCADomain.newInstance("CompositeTest.composite");
more specifically, it is happening here:
Def
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Frank Budinsky resolved TUSCANY-1250.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Thanks to Daniel for the suggested fix. It looks good and I committed
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1197?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Frank Budinsky resolved TUSCANY-1197.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Committed revision 536331.
> Sequence composition
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1251?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12494396
]
Chris Mildebrandt commented on TUSCANY-1251:
I verified the fix for this. Thanks for the quick turn-aro
On 5/8/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
>
>> Hi, some comments in line
>>
>> There has been many commits and good progress the last few days, so I
>>
>>> (cut)
>>>
>>> Main todo's that I could think of:
>>> - Port the Web Service binding extensio
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
ant elder reassigned TUSCANY-1253:
--
Assignee: ant elder (was: Simon Nash)
> Update Axis2 binding for new SPIs
>
Simon Nash wrote:
Simon Laws wrote:
Hi, some comments in line
There has been many commits and good progress the last few days, so I
(cut)
Main todo's that I could think of:
- Port the Web Service binding extension to the latest code, as it's
really important to have, and is also used by m
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Simon Nash updated TUSCANY-1253:
Attachment: axis2binding.zip
Complete replacement for all files in the org.apache.tuscany.binding
Update Axis2 binding for new SPIs
-
Key: TUSCANY-1253
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1253
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Java SCA Axis Binding
Affects Versions:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1251?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Frank Budinsky resolved TUSCANY-1251.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed in revision 536309.
> Code generated from xsd:base64Binary typ
I updated the "Top issue?" section.
Simon
Luciano Resende wrote:
Thinking a little bit more about this, I think we should collaborate
internally first, so I created a page in our wiki for the community
collaboration [1]. If you want to check our past reports, to get
familiar with what we usu
Are there general issues accessing DataGraph/ChangeSummary for SDO2? I
don't seem to be able to get access to either using M2 or M3.
I can create DataObjects for SDOs I had used previously without a problem
(used with SDO1). I can also load the sample DataObject XSD outlined in
the SDO2 spec
Ah, the wonders of Maven. Thanks Ant, I didn't spot that.
Simon
Hi Fuhwei,
Perhaps it would help to see what works and what doesn't work. This code works:
HelperContext context = SDOUtil.createHelperContext();
context.getXSDHelper().define(new
FileInputStream("./wd-sdd-common-1.0.xsd"), (new
File("./wd-sdd-common-1.0.xsd")).toURI().toString())
I am getting the following composite assembly problem:
http://rafb.net/p/VXfXxn58.html, with the appended composite, component
implementation target java reference interface and composite reference wsdl
interface. This was working last Friday before the flood of commits.
If I change the composite
ant elder wrote:
I wondered if we should get rid of ProviderActivator and just have
ServiceBindingProvider, ReferenceBindingProvider and
ImplementationProvider
explicitly define the start/stop methods.
+1, good idea.
Also, I'm wondering if having BindingProviderFactory extend Binding and
I
[snip]
ant elder wrote:
Another approach would be to have a Tuscany specific customized Tomact
configuration so that defining the Tuscany specific web.xml things isn't
required and they get defined automatically during the webapp startup,
perhaps by noticing there's a META-INF/sca-contribution.x
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1251?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12494335
]
Frank Budinsky commented on TUSCANY-1251:
-
This is a side effect of the recent fix for TUSCANY-1223. I'll t
Ok, i'll do at least one to help review how its done, i'll start at the
bottom with the supplychain sample.
...ant
On 5/8/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
I'm working steadily through the samples...
- Converting readmes to simple text READMEs and updating where appropriate
- Ad
It should be working. The only differences between it and the calculator
sample is that the pom.xml has war instead of jar in the element
and there's a folder src\main\webapp which includes a calc.jsp and web.xml.
...ant
On 5/8/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've seen much discu
I've seen much discussion on the list re. a webapp solution. There is now a
calculator-web sample but it seems to be the same as the calculator sample.
Is this a work in progress?
Regards
Simon
Hi, Simon.
I suggest that you submit incremental patches. This way, we could also help
to port the module together.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: Status of Java SCA 0.90 release
S
Hi,
The axis2 binding related stuff are not fully ported yet. I think Simon Nash
is working on it.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: "Ignacio Silva-Lepe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tuscany Dev List"
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:27 AM
Subject: Build failure
Anyone getting
Hi
I'm working steadily through the samples...
- Converting readmes to simple text READMEs and updating where appropriate
- Adding build.xml (or mulitple as required) to provide an ant build for the
binary distribution
- Adding a diagram of the sample composite (not necessary for the
distributio
Hi Chris,
I think what you did below should work except the addressProperty is null. Can
you make sure your addressProperty is not null (make sure your namespace and
property name are accurate.)
((DataObject)
identity).getList(addressProperty).add(address);
Here is what I did and it works.
Hi,
I have been updating my Conversational patch to reflect the changes introduced
by the recent refactoring work. There have been lots of changes :-) I hope to
submit the patch fairly soon.
However, my Conversational Patch has run into a problem with the new refactored
code.
Previously, the
Gold XML files not in the repository
Key: TUSCANY-1252
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1252
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Java SDO Community Test Suite
Affe
Anyone getting this: http://rafb.net/p/pxFjAz46.html ?
I did a full update, followed by mvn clean; mvn at the top.
Code generated from xsd:base64Binary types fail to compile
--
Key: TUSCANY-1251
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1251
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Bug
Compon
On 5/8/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- I'm not sure about the JSONRPC binding, wouldn't it be nice to have it
too?
I'd be more than happy to work on the port of the JSONRPC binding, I
was waiting for the axis2 binding to get updated since that was the
binding I used as a
I wondered if we should get rid of ProviderActivator and just have
ServiceBindingProvider, ReferenceBindingProvider and ImplementationProvider
explicitly define the start/stop methods.
Also, I'm wondering if having BindingProviderFactory extend Binding and
ImplementationProviderFactory extend Imp
This guide seems to be obsolete already, as we now seem to have a single
ProviderActivator interface extended by the BindingProvider interfaces.
Also, there is now a BindingProviderFactory interface that is not shown. How
is this last one intended to be used? The RMI binding shows it as
implemente
Sebastien,
I have a slightly different perspective, inline below.
Dave
2) What is the point of promoting it anyway? It seems the only point
of
promoting it would be to allow this Composite to serve as the impl for
another component.
Since we don't do that in this simple sample, doesn't
I'd also like to remove the getImplementationInterfaceContract method from
the ReferenceBindingProvider and ServiceBindingProvider interfaces as well
as nothing seems to do anything useful with them, but now I wonder if I'm
missing something. Is there a good reason why this method still need to be
Simon Laws wrote:
Hi, some comments in line
There has been many commits and good progress the last few days, so I
(cut)
Main todo's that I could think of:
- Port the Web Service binding extension to the latest code, as it's
really important to have, and is also used by many integration tests
Hi, please find my comments inline.
Thanks
- Venkat
On 5/8/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried a bit to rename some of the packages (not adding sca yet) but
> I just realized that it became a bit out of control with the flood of
> check-
How about merging ScopedImplementationProvider into ImplementationProvider
so we have just the single provider interface? Shouldn't every
implementation type have to consider supporting scope and life cycle, so
having them on the ImplementationProvider interface makes that obvious and
impls can ju
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12494231
]
Daniel Peter commented on TUSCANY-1250:
---
Fix suggestion:
The following line in the file SDOFactoryClass.java
Hi, some comments in line
There has been many commits and good progress the last few days, so I
spent a little bit of time checking the status of the trunk.
Here's a summary of what I found:
- The code cleanup is almost complete, I think there's a little bit work
left to refactor one last .spi.
On 5/7/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Luciano Resende wrote:
> Comments inline
>
> On 5/7/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Luciano Resende wrote:
>> > Recently we have been prototyping around what should be our web
client
>> > application story,
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I tried a bit to rename some of the packages (not adding sca yet) but
I just realized that it became a bit out of control with the flood of
check-ins.
Maybe the best way is that we agree on the naming convention for the
core-spi and core and then have one person to d
ant elder wrote:
The script implementation has now been ported over to these new SPIs
and all
seems to be ok and the calculator-script sample works now. The new
SPIs seem
to me vastly better than what we had before. There's still some things I
think could be done to make it even easier to write
62 matches
Mail list logo
