Responses inline...for some reason my email client is mishandling the
formatting, so I'll mark my responses with
Dave
- Original Message -
From: ant elder
To: scabooz
Cc: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Decl
I might be the 'they', not sure. This is a very hard email thread to follow
so let
me try to articulate some ideas.
First, bindingType and implementationType were introduced by the SCA Policy
FW spec because that spec was the first to need a bit of metadata describing
bindings from a typing per
I'm going to take this off list as we have a disconnect here that is not
Tuscany specific.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: componentType interfaces and data transforms
ke Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: componentType interfaces and data transforms
Comments inline,
scabooz wrote:
But if the WSDL specified in the componentType is the 'mapped to' WSDL
from the implementation then it does
But if the WSDL specified in the componentType is the 'mapped to' WSDL from
the implementation then it does reflect the implementation. I would then
argue that it was a valid componentType.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May
context to
react properly.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Reporting errors for illegal SCA annotations (TUSCANY-2140)
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when th
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when the application is developed. +1 for Errors when
you put the application into production. The trick is to know the
difference
between deployment for UT vs. deployment for real.
:-)
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Hi guys,
I'm not an XML expert but I think if you wanted that qualified intent
to be in a separate namespace you'd do it like this:
http://www.apache.org/tuscany"; ..>
Used to indicate that a component implementation requires a
managed global transaction.
You ca
Hi Raymond,
We hashed this out once before and you recorded the results
on a wiki page, but I can't find it. Do you recall?
comments imbedded.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Feng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: real basic que
Hi Greg and Venkat,
Answers to spec questions inline..
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Venkata Krishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Transaction intents
Hi Greg,
With respect to your last point on 'code removing intents', this h
FWIW, the policy spec has an open issue to consider how to
describe intents that have such a relationship. It's similar to the
idea of a profile intent, but the semantics for matching wires
would be slightly different.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-22
Dave
- Original Message
nks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: "scabooz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Resetting state of service references at conversation end
Please Java spec errata #11 at this link:
http://www.osoa.org/display/Main/Errat
a good chance that the same instance
is picked.
My understanding of "stateless" is that there is no garauntee that
multiple requests will be routed to the same instance.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: "scabooz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent:
Please Java spec errata #11 at this link:
http://www.osoa.org/display/Main/Errata+for+Java+Annotations+and+APIs+V1.00
I didn't see it referenced in the discussion, and it clears up the A->B->A
question.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Laws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Su
Comments inline
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Optimize the reference injection for java components
Simon,
Some comments inline
Simon Nash wrote:
If I understand this correctly, it wo
Hi,
This email thread has stopped, but I'll revive it...comments here.
WRT the tables on the wiki, everything looks good except:
-Table 2, row 1, I think the binding should be binding.sca. I don't think
the spec is clear on this and thus there will be disagreement.
-Table 2, row2, I think there
Hi,
I've been disconnected from the network for the last two days. Sorry
for jumping in late.
I don't like the idea of using threadLocals for this because it creates
undesirable thread affinities. More complex scenarios involving
intervening async calls will result in the need to propagate this
Hi guys,
See below
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Conversational - spec question
Simon Laws wrote:
On 7/20/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks,
It is clear from read
Hi Valerio,
It's not. @EagerInit is only useful for composite scoped
components. This annotation is only mentioned in the
composite scoped section of the Java Annotations and
APIs specwhich is probably why you asked the question.
It's not an oversight that its not mentioned anywhere else (pl
Hi guys,
More comments inline. There are some issues with
multiplicity and multiple bindings.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: Canonical form for binding URIs and reference targets
Comments in
Hi,
I have a few comments embedded below.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Raymond Feng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: Domains, runtimes, components and cardinality
Hi,
Please see my comments inline below.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Origina
Simon,
I think it great that you're trying to tackle this problem and it seems like
You're on the right track. My only suggestion (at this point) is to first
get the runtime back to where it was before .90 from the perspective
of the SCA app, if that's possible.
Only one comment embedded below.
Venkat,
comments embedded...
- Original Message -
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Policy Framework Impl. in Tuscany
Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Hi,
I am keen on adding further to the Policy support thats in Tusca
Why do we think that a Domain base URI is physically addressable and
known to a DNS? I see it as a level of indirection used to address
"things" in an assembly. These URIs would need to be mapped (by
binding components to runtimes at deployment time) to something concrete.
Contributions are as
explicit one):
http://localhost:8080/c1
Do you agree?
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: Promoting and configuring services in an SCA domain, was:
A
few
issues with HelloW
Venkat,
Sebastien is correct, the spec has a hole here, so let's try to
fill in the hole to see what works, and then feed it back to
the spec community. I would have opted for "relative to the
contribution". If the URI is absolute, then it should be treated
as absolute. IMHO, this is not very
Hi Raymond,
I don't see any other appends on this topic.
In short, the answer is yes, case3 is not valid.
For cases 1 and 2, I presume you forgot to include
@multiplicity. One of the ..n forms would be needed for
both case1 and 2 to be complete.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Ray
+1 to Scott's point. The spec does not assert that services are only
available outside of a Domain when they are promoted as composite level
services.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Kurz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Promoting and
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
This thread is getting deep (and long), but I want to inject some ideas
into this part of the discussion.
I'd like to propose a target use-case that might help drive us towards
a reasonable solution. Component1 in composite1 (cz1) invokes
component2 in composite2(cz2), so c2 is @remotable. Also
Hi Frank,
Can you help me understand why defaultContext is a singleton? I don't see
it
described that way in the specs, so I'm hoping you can help me understand
this.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Frank Budinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:40 PM
Su
that and it worked fine if you just pass
the java.lang.Object.class and service name. I was
writing a common service factory which return the
service bussiness interface with service name only.
and the client know which interface class it cast too
:)
--- scabooz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
M
Muhwas,
Your objection to the locateService API seems to be
the need to pass the business interface class. As Simon
noted, this doesn't go away with the new v1.0 API.
If the business interface were not passed as a parameter,
what interface would you expect the returned proxy
to implement?
Dave
Hi guys,
Just saw thisWRT multi-valued string properties, there is an errata item
for this against the v1.0 spec. I think the solution looked like this:
Apache
Tuscany
Java
SCA
But I can't find the details right now. For now, I suggest you
wait until OSOA publishes the errata, ra
Hi Sebastien,
I don't see any other replies, and I feel like I'm being tricked in
some way
First, let me say that this could be more clearly described. However,
there is a precedent in the WSDL extension for @requires. It is
described in section 1.5.4 of the assembly spec. When applied to
t
Hi,
I don't get a formal vote, but as an embedder it is extremely painful
to consume and embed a new level of code when the SPI layer
(that's supposed to insulate embedders) is changing as often as the
underlying kernel implementation. At the moment, the current
SPI layer might as well be invisi
I think Raymond makes some good points. It's very difficult to consume,
extend and test the runtime with all of the volatility. A bunch of itests
have
been contributed, but they don't work. These tests are a concrete way
to measure stability, and I'm sure there will be more contributed over t
I'm coming in a little late to Jeremy's post, and trying
not to create too many email chains
It seems to me that there's a simpler scenario that you
might want to start with. Two atomic components in the
SCA domain, communicating over the default binding
where each component is hosted on dif
onship (as oppose the usual client-server
relationship between components).
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Callback methods w/ non-void return types
On Jan 12, 2007, at 1:50 PM,
ehave asynchronously
anyway to handle the callbacks, so it could also handle the
response that way.
And, orthogonal dimensions imply combinations. So my question
is, is the use-case at hand common enough to justify handling
the combinations, both at the spec level and at the impl level.
On 1/12/07, sca
Ignacio,
It's true that non-void returns are mux with non-blocking, but
that's not the point being made. The point is that
non-blocking and bidirectional are orthogonal.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Ignacio Silva-Lepe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:09
group and in practice it is not working well.
On the other hand, there are issues with this API in general as Jim
has mentioned earlier. Do you think we should start to tackle those?
--
Jeremy
On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:13 PM, scabooz wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Are you also going to propose the rem
Hi Jeremy,
Are you also going to propose the removal of the
getContext() API?
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Spec proposal for setting the current CompositeContext
On Jan 10, 2007, at 1
Jim,
See below please.
-Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Creating proxies (fix for TUSCANY-862)
On Nov 30, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Greg Dritschler wrote:
I've been using a JSP to test this.
Hi guys,
Only one comment on #7 below.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Pass-by-value support for remotable interfaces
On Nov 27, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
The SCA spec says
Hi Luciano,
I didn't see any other replies to your email, so I'll give you my two cents.
My first inclination for Stored Procedures in SCA is as component
implementations. The binding for a STP would be related to the mechanism
that a particular DB uses to invoke STPs. In Java, one might be
Hi guys,
Special attention for Jim toward the end of this.
There have been some branches in this email thread.
Apologies if I don't inject at the right point in the chain, but
much of the discussion is not related to the point I want to
make. I need to react to something that's been discussed
a
se. I need to think more on this,
and maybe I'll change my mind. Didn't want to let this
thread just die.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: EJB3 (JPA) support
hey don't want to use declarative services, or they are not
suited for an application's needs
- they just like JPA or Hibernate for whatever reason
From a non-technical perspective, this helps to embrace several
communities by showing how their technologies are relevant in an
Hi Jim,
This is the first time I've seen this topic discussed on the list. Apologies
if I've missed it previously. Can you illuminate some of your
thinking behind it? I'm interested in understanding the use cases you
might be thinking of supporting, from at least the
perspective of the app deve
FWIW, This is an area of the specs that are under discussion, and this
exact point has been raised. The following assumes that conversational
support is out of scope of this thread of discussion. However, it does
have effect on the use cases in the end.
The intention in the current specs is tha
Jim,
Comments below
Dave Booz
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: interceptors and async invocation
Hi Greg,
Comments below.
On Sep 27, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Greg Dritschler wrote:
In the current
have to say anything about it.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Why do we need binding.sca?
On Sep 26, 2006, at 12:01 PM, scabooz wrote:
Jeremy,
We need to bring these thr
Jeremy,
We need to bring these threads back together. Mike's comments
further reinforce the concepts.
I'm confused. seems like a very different concept to
all other bindings. They all define protocols etc. but
does not; they allow interaction with non-SCA services,
does not; they su
Replies in line
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Why do we need binding.sca?
On Sep 25, 2006, at 6:47 PM, scabooz wrote:
Sebastien did a good job enumerating the ratio
Sebastien did a good job enumerating the rationale for why the
exists in the specifications. Perhaps your concern is over the name of the
binding, and not the specific reason for its existence? I could be
convinced that "default" is a bad name, but we'd need a suggestion for
an improvement.
d
Jeremy (and others of course),
There have been a few recent threads that have touched on the
various aspects of how Tuscany might be imbedded in a larger
runtime environment. At least Jeremy is already starting to form
a mental model of what that should look like, so I'm wondering
if someone could
57 matches
Mail list logo
