Hi Simon,
Thanks for your detailed comments, that gives a clear picture. I have now
opened a JIRA (TUSCANY-2277) to address this issue. By this defect we
will standardize the way messages are logged into the monitor.
Will keep things posted in this thread for any complicated situations and if
i am not sure about any exceptions that are thrown.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
On 4/29/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 4/25/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > I opened JIRA 2260 and attached a second batch of validation test
> > > cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards
> > > > > Hasan
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:16 AM, 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>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Hi Hasan
> > > >
> > > > have been running some of the validation code today and I notice
> that
> > > > quite a few of the reported error messages have their parameters
> > > > miss-aligned. I.e. I often see an unexpanded {1}. This is down the
> the
> > > > builder warning() method being called with too few parameters. It
> > takes
> > > >
> > > > warning(String message, Object model, String... messageParameters)
> > > >
> > > > So if i had a {0} and a {1} in the message I would use something
> like
> > > >
> > > > warning("ReferenceIncompatibleInterface", composite,
> > > > componentReference.getName(), componentService.getName());
> > > >
> > > > Where the two parameters are passed in at the end.
> > > >
> > > > Easy enough for me to go and fix the ones I find but thought I would
> > > raise
> > > > it in case you are doing some more and spot mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Actually I went through the places where warning is called and they
> are
> > all
> > > pretty much perfect so I must have just hit the one bad one that have
> a
> > > missing parameter. As far as I know they are all good now.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> > I had a chance to look at the monitors that are being hooked up with
> > different parts of the code and found some inconsistency interms of
> > raising
> > warning & errors. In some places we throw exceptions and in other places
> > we
> > raise a warning. I also believe there are instances where we need to do
> > both, the below examples might give us some clue.....
> >
> > Here are some examples for the inconsistency.......
> >
> > BaseConfigurationBuilderImpl.java
> > Here we raise only a warning for URISyntaxException, should we not throw
> > an
> > exception too?
> >
> > BaseWireBuilderImpl.java
> > Here we throw exceptions for IncompatibleInterfaceContractException,
> don't
> > you think we also need to register this message in our monitor?
> > In the same class, we raise a warning message for the PolicyRelated
> > Exceptions, should we also throw an exception here?
> >
> > CompositeProcessor.java
> > There are instances where we throw new ContributionReadException, i
> > believe
> > registering this msg with a monitor is also required as this is caused
> by
> > incorrect user input.
> >
> > Like to know your views on this... so that we can consider a standard
> way
> > of
> > raising warning/errors using the monitor.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >
>
> Hi Ram
>
> Good analysis. Looks like we've some work to do. I've just posted to an
> oldish thread [1] about the implications of raising errors and warnings. I
> think from what you say we have to.
>
> 1. Make sure we are raising errors/warnings on the monitor rather than
> throwing exceptions in code that is processing user input. I.e. we want
> all
> processing to complete as far as possible through each phase.
> 2. Make those errors/exception available from the monitor. We need a
> resettable cache
> 3. Allow problems to be retrieved from the monitor and analyzed (printed
> out
> to the console in our case)
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg29766.html
>
