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
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.
2.3 looks very like CompositeWireBuilder.
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.
Simon
[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
