Hi Simon
I opened JIRA 2255 and attached a patch for the new testcases.
Hasan
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > We should have an api for plugins to provide a resource bundle. This
> api
> > > probably needs to be on the monitor or somewhere, i am not sure. But
> the
> > > scenario occurs when plugins want to use the default Monitor but still
> > > want
> > > to use their own resource bundle for messageIDs.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Hasan
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Simon,
> > > >
> > > > I looked at the new Monitor and Problem interfaces. What do
> > > getMessageId()
> > > > and getMessageParams() actually return? is MessageId a way to
> > > categorize the
> > > > error message?
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > > Hasan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if i can cook up some validation test cases if
> they
> > > do
> > > > > not exist. Or should we wait until the monitor issue is resolved ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hasan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I dont think using an underlying tuscany jdk logger would be
> > > useful to
> > > > > > plugins as they may not want to log, rather show it somewhere
> else
> > > such as
> > > > > > console etc. Tuscany can use an underlying logger in it's own
> > > monitor ( as
> > > > > > it uses today). But i think the first approach of using a
> monitor
> > > is better
> > > > > > along with the condition that it be made more usable by the
> > > plugins by
> > > > > > giving them greater control.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another point is that tuscany should use ResourceBundle for
> > > validation
> > > > > > messages as well. I dont think this is being done today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards
> > > > > > Hasan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Simon Laws <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Simon Laws <
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Hasan Muhammad <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am on revision 634808. The ContributionServiceImpl has
> > > changed
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > then,
> > > > > > > > > and with the one that i have, it would lead through the
> > > > > > > > > CompositeProcessor
> > > > > > > > > instead of the CompositeDocumentProcessor. Hence the
> > > difference
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > exceptions..
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, dont you think that with the error that you got
> should
> > > > > > > throw an
> > > > > > > > > exception with schema validation, rather than just a
> > > warning?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hasan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:36 AM, Simon Laws <
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Hasan Muhammad <
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the good information. First up i am
> trying
> > > to
> > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > the schema validation works when we point to our
> > > schemas.
> > > > > > > Can you
> > > > > > > > > let me
> > > > > > > > > > > know what is a simple error that i can introduce so
> that
> > > i
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > I tried doing this to my composite file (In block
> red):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <component name="MyServiceComponentNew">
> > > > > > > > > > > <implementation.java
> > > > > > > > > > class="mysca.test.myservice.impl.MyServiceImpl"/>
> > > > > > > > > > > *<binding.ws/>*
> > > > > > > > > > > <property name="location" source="$newLocation"/>
> > > > > > > > > > > <property name="year" source="$newYear"/>
> > > > > > > > > > > </component>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This resulted in the following exception, but i think
> > > this
> > > > > > > is part
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > validation done by artifact processor and would result
> > > even
> > > > > > > if we
> > > > > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > > > out the schema validation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.service.ContributionReadException:
> > > > > > > > > > > Unexpected <binding> element found. It should appear
> > > inside
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > <service>
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > <reference> element
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.read(CompositeProcessor.java:373)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.read(CompositeProcessor.java:75)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor.read(ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor.java:83)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.service.impl.ContributionServiceImpl.processReadPhase(ContributionServiceImpl.java:475)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.service.impl.ContributionServiceImpl.addContribution(ContributionServiceImpl.java:383)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.service.impl.ContributionServiceImpl.contribute(ContributionServiceImpl.java:202)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.runtime.impl.DomainCompositeHelper.addContribution(DomainCompositeHelper.java:75)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.runtime.impl.SCAContainerComponentImpl.startComposite(SCAContainerComponentImpl.java:235)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.admin.runtime.tuscany.SCATuscanyRuntimeHandlerImpl.startModule(SCATuscanyRuntimeHandlerImpl.java:125)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.admin.runtime.impl.SCARuntimeImpl.start(SCARuntimeImpl.java:349)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.soa.sca.admin.runtime.impl.SCARuntimeImpl.start(SCARuntimeImpl.java:446)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.runtime.component.CompositionUnitMgrImpl.start(CompositionUnitMgrImpl.java:331)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.runtime.component.CompositionUnitImpl.start(CompositionUnitImpl.java:126)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.runtime.component.CompositionUnitMgrImpl.start(CompositionUnitMgrImpl.java:281)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.ws.runtime.component.CompositionUnitMgrImpl$CUInitializer.run(CompositionUnitMgrImpl.java:768)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> com.ibm.wsspi.runtime.component.WsComponentImpl$_AsynchInitializer.run(WsComponentImpl.java:348)
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > com.ibm.ws.util.ThreadPool$Worker.run(ThreadPool.java:1487)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > regards
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Simon Laws <
> > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Hasan Muhammad <
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, i see that we have various places where
> > > we
> > > > > > > can plug
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > validation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > monitoring. Some of the ones that i found are in
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ReallySmallRuntimeBuilder as shown below:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > public static CompositeBuilder
> > > > > > > > > > > createCompositeBuilder(AssemblyFactory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > assemblyFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > SCABindingFactory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > scaBindingFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IntentAttachPointTypeFactory
> > > > > > > intentAttachPointTypeFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > InterfaceContractMapper interfaceContractMapper,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > List<PolicySet>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > domainPolicySets) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > return new
> > > CompositeBuilderImpl(assemblyFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > scaBindingFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > intentAttachPointTypeFactory,
> > > interfaceContractMapper,
> > > > > > > > > > > domainPolicySets,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > null);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > public static DomainBuilder
> > > > > > > > > createDomainBuilder(AssemblyFactory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > assemblyFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SCABindingFactory scaBindingFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IntentAttachPointTypeFactory
> > > > > > > > > > intentAttachPointTypeFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > InterfaceContractMapper
> > > > > > > interfaceContractMapper,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > List<PolicySet> domainPolicySets) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > return new
> > > DomainWireBuilderImpl(assemblyFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > scaBindingFactory,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > intentAttachPointTypeFactory,
> > > interfaceContractMapper,
> > > > > > > > > > > domainPolicySets,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > null);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of passing null, we can pass in our own
> > > > > > > > > > CompositeBuildMonitor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these the only places where we need to do this? or
> > > are
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > places
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hasan
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hasan
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There are a few places that logically we need to be
> > > able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > validate
> > > > > > > > > > > input
> > > > > > > > > > > > and hence add monitors. The story is changing a
> little
> > > as
> > > > > > > we are
> > > > > > > > > > moving
> > > > > > > > > > > > toward the new "workspace" code for managing
> > > > > > > contributions but
> > > > > > > > > > > logically
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > would expect to be running validating on at least
> the
> > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Contribution processing
> > > > > > > > > > > > - dependency (imports/exports) analysis
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> [org.apache.tuscany.sca.workspace.builder.impl.ContributionDependencyBuilderImpl]
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Composite read
> > > > > > > > > > > > - schema compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> [org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory
> > > > > > > > > > > > - only appears to be initialized in
> > > > > > > ReallySmallRuntimeBuilder so
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > look at this in context of workspace]
> > > > > > > > > > > > - policy intent matching
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> [org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeDocumentProcessor]
> > > > > > > > > > > > - extension availability [General artifact
> processor
> > > > > > > hierarchy]
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Composite resolve
> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure that artifacts required by the composite
> > > are
> > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > [General
> > > > > > > > > > > > artifact resolver hierarchy]
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Composite build
> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure that the composite is valid and
> consistent,
> > > > > > > e.g. unique
> > > > > > > > > > > > component names, valid reference targets etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > [org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.builder.impl.CompositeBuilderImpl]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've noted in the square brackets where this
> function
> > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > > > Note
> > > > > > > > > > > > also that I'm making no comment here about whether
> the
> > > > > > > > > construction of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > in-memory composite model is for use purely for
> > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > is going to activated and started in a runtime. This
> > > > > > > validation is
> > > > > > > > > > > > appropriate in both cases although you may choose to
> > > use
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > monitors
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the two cases.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So what I suggest as a first step is that you go
> ahead
> > > and
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > ReallySmallRuntimeBuilder to plug a monitor into
> > > > > > > > > CompositeBuilderImpl
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > > how it works. We can work here to build a consistent
> > > view
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - all the places a monitor is required
> > > > > > > > > > > > - what should the plugin model for monitors be
> > > > > > > > > > > > - the flow of control (monitors vs exceptions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > - what extra features may be required, I18N etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to try a few experiments too to
> familiarize
> > > > > > > myself with
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > more.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Hasan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The change you suggest should cause a schema validation
> > > error.
> > > > > > > I made
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > change locally in samples/calculator and see the
> following
> > > > > > > output in
> > > > > > > > > > stdout
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 08-Apr-2008 22:41:54
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ValidatingXMLStreamReader$1
> > > > > > > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > WARNING: XMLSchema validation problem in: null, line:
> 28,
> > > > > > > column: 5
> > > > > > > > > > cvc-complex-type.2.4.a: Invalid content was found
> starting
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > element '
> > > > > > > > > > binding.ws'. One of '{"http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0
> > > ":include,
> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":service, "
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":property, "
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":component, "
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":reference, "
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0":wire, WC[##other:"
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"]}' is expected.
> > > > > > > > > > 08-Apr-2008 22:41:54
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor
> > > > > > > > > > read
> > > > > > > > > > WARNING: Element {
> > > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0}binding.ws<http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0%7Dbinding.ws>
> <http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0%7Dbinding.ws>
> > > <http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0%7Dbinding.ws>
> > > > > > > <http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0%7Dbinding.ws>
> > > > > > > > > <http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0%7Dbinding.ws>cannot be
> > > > > > > > > > processed. ([row,col {unknown-source}]: [28,5])
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No exception is raised though.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let me take a look at what has changed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, thanks for that Hasan. I see the change you are
> > > referencing.
> > > > > > > I'm not
> > > > > > > > sure why the exception is no longer thrown. The code is
> still
> > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > CompositeProcessor to trap the case but maybe the offending
> > > > > > > element is
> > > > > > > > removed from the stream because of the validation warning.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would argue that we shouldn't mandate that an exception is
> > > > > > > thrown in
> > > > > > > > this case but that the validation mechanism is opened up to
> > > the
> > > > > > > monitor API
> > > > > > > > so that a monitor can be attached and those who are
> embedding
> > > > > > > tuscany can
> > > > > > > > decide how they want to deal with errors like this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've just been through the original list again looking at what
> > > > > > > happens with
> > > > > > > validation types errors (by which I mean a workspace type
> admin
> > > > > > > console
> > > > > > > would reasonably want to display based on user input/changes).
> > > This
> > > > > > > is what
> > > > > > > I found.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Contribution processing
> > > > > > > - dependency (imports/exports) analysis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.workspace.builder.impl.ContributionDependencyBuilderImpl
> > > > > > > uses a ContributionDependencyBuilderMonitor
> > > > > > > - Composite read
> > > > > > > - schema compliance
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultValidatingXMLInputFactory
> > > > > > > Uses writes to local JDK Logger
> > > > > > > - policy intent matching
> > > > > > >
> > > org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeDocumentProcessor
> > > > > > > Throws exceptions
> > > > > > > - extension availability
> > > > > > > General artifact processor hierarchy
> > > > > > > Throws exceptions
> > > > > > > - SCA compliance, e.g. annotation correctness
> > > > > > > General artifact processor hierarchy
> > > > > > > Throws exceptions
> > > > > > > - Composite resolve
> > > > > > > - ensure that artifacts required by the composite are
> > > available
> > > > > > > General artifact resolver hierarchy
> > > > > > > Throws exceptions
> > > > > > > - Composite build
> > > > > > > - ensure that the composite is valid and consistent, e.g.
> > > unique
> > > > > > > component names, valid reference targets etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.builder.impl.CompositeBuilderImpl
> > > > > > > uses a CompositeBuilderMonitor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to look for a more consistent approach across
> these
> > > > > > > various
> > > > > > > elements of validation. The aim being to make it more obvious
> > > how to
> > > > > > > recognize validation type errors and act accordingly. There
> has
> > > been
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > relatively lengthy debate about how to group and report errors
> > > in
> > > > > > > [1] which
> > > > > > > is worth a read. The scenarios I have in mind are workspace
> > > > > > > administration
> > > > > > > type scenarios where, for example, A user may
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Add a contribution and be notified that contributions that it
> > > > > > > depends on are
> > > > > > > not available
> > > > > > > Look at a composite and be notified that there are XML and/or
> > > SCA
> > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From [1] we want to capture as many errors as possible before
> > > > > > > reporting back
> > > > > > > to the user. Two things come immediately to mind.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1 - Pull up the Monitor API and make it more generic (and from
> > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > comments here make it an extension point)
> > > > > > > 2 - Rely on a Tuscany specific JDK logger and remove the
> monitor
> > > (or
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > least don't extend it further).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm going to think some more about these options. Any thoughts
> > > or
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > options?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Simon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg29878.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi Hasan
> >
> > What do you mean in your question by "plugin". If you mean an Tuscany
> > extension then I think we have that covered as each extension will ship
> with
> > any bundles that it needs and stll the default monitor can be used.
> >
> > Here is the model I have in my head of this.
> >
> > runtime
> > monitor
> > module (there are many of these in the runtime)
> > resource bundle
> > raises problems - each problem references the name of a resource
> > bundle for the modules in question (I don't believe I can get the name
> of
> > the module automatically)
> >
> > So I'm anticipating that the runtime will create a single monitor but
> this
> > is not a hard and fast rule.
> >
> > Each module/extension raises problems referencing the resource bundle
> that
> > it contains. Hence the module provides messages appropriate to errors
> that
> > it will raise. The resource bundle reference is by root name so there is
> not
> > reason why the resource bundle couldn't be put somewhere else.
> >
> > If you want to change the default messages that are provided, as opposed
> > to create a new extension with new messages, there are a number of
> options.
> >
> > - The source code approach - i.e. change the bundles provided
> > - Provide new bundles first on the classpath - I think they will get
> > picked up in preference to the default ones but I would have to test it
> to
> > see
> > - We could reorganize the bundles so they are in their in their own
> > separate jars. Then you would provide a replacement jar.
> > - Add an API to the monitor to allow a bundle mapping to be specified.
> In
> > this case though it seems easier to provide a new monitor implementation
> > rather than providing a new API.
> >
> > There are probably more options so any thoughts are welcome. I'm
> currently
> > working on getting the new monitor integrated into the existing modules
> > (primarily assembly) so we will have something to try out. We can take a
> > look at these options for real when I'm done.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> Hi
>
> I've just checked in the changes to do the basic integration of the
> monitor
> extension with the rest of the code base. Its a light touch end to end
> integration at the moment. Here are some of the TODOs
>
> - Move messages into resource bundles.
> - Local monitors are still created in some places.
> - If a monitor implementation is not found then a warning is raised but
> execution continues so that I don't have to change the dependencies of the
> many tests that now don't pull in a monitor but also don't raise any
> warnings. May want to address this but It's OK for the time being.
>
> Hopefully now the validation itests make more sense now. The test to look
> at
> is the duplicate component name test. This is the only message I've moved
> out into a resource bundle at the moment. Now I have the basics in I'll
> move
> all the messages and do the tidying up.
>
> Also I've switched to using node instead of domain in the tests. I notice
> we need to do some work on the constructor for this type of use. I'll work
> on this too.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
