On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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> > > > > > > > > > > <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 > > > Thanks for the patch Hasan. I just applied it. Simon