Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-aries-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 17182 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2010 19:32:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2010 19:32:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 65533 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2010 19:32:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-aries-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 65382 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2010 19:32:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact aries-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: aries-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list aries-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 65374 invoked by uid 99); 27 Sep 2010 19:32:24 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:32:24 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of alasdair.nottingham@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.43] (HELO mail-ww0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:32:15 +0000 Received: by wwb18 with SMTP id 18so2947961wwb.0 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:31:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=lzDSAr5BIclLclUgPmlLfCXqvcq41D7p0Sz+IinSYug=; b=oV8tZ0agR+1QqqbGHui5QmHtZMMh1Gny28AeSKJZUkfoXBLFWYDkEip3S6DDLOl0sO kh+ZzN/oisjFeSJK33txCn3U+BPB5TJvq4sEac5oAvjkwEoSKeJyfDdunSaH9lLo/LFQ 1PXbn8RpawqxVsjcgX7zfo6Kr4Jti9EEmgaL4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; b=bYS6VY9qy3Q9EkxUUmieFWIIkW9z3xaW7U0CnOlclV2aop8NJwR5wUeF5uj7yqLqWA ldLIO8cv2CJDBN6HjnPgs5zGr6ODh+5eXIfFV6cxGZEYCyWWJcRucI1b5nccL32mKqm1 IAT57GX6s2/BXk/Pzk4kMAoFaCJW9YgbUtY8Q= Received: by 10.216.7.78 with SMTP id 56mr16293weo.96.1285615915277; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.7.6] (cust135-dsl91-135-10.idnet.net [91.135.10.135]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k83sm3877344weq.14.2010.09.27.12.31.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Alasdair Nottingham References: <4CA0DC19.6060305@gmail.com> <8578059C-7650-40C3-A7BF-B47DBB624FFD@apache.org> <4CA0E3C4.2070303@gmail.com> <300292B7-C2EA-49F7-9814-80E6344463BA@apache.org> <4CA0ECD6.4010400@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4CA0ECD6.4010400@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A306) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8A306) From: Alasdair Nottingham Subject: Re: parsing blueprint elements on EBA install Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:30:57 +0100 To: "aries-dev@incubator.apache.org" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I think knowing the context is probably helpful, but I think the resolve pro= bably wants to know the service exists so you can reference the service from= blueprint and have the resolve work and the application can install. Alasdair On 27 Sep 2010, at 20:13, Joe Bohn wrote: > That's similar to my scenario. In my case I'm trying to get the bundle-id= of the bundle that is being parsed and use that to register a service. The= bundle-id isn't even available when the parsing is initiated by the applica= tion code - so I effectively want to do a no-op when this is initiated from t= he application code. I may need to come up with a way to understand the con= text of when this is being invoked. >=20 > Joe >=20 > On 9/27/10 2:55 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> Does this behavior mean that an EBA can't package a namespace handler tha= t one of its other bundles uses? Is this prohibited or even a bad idea for o= ther reasons? >>=20 >> thanks >> david jencks >>=20 >> On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote: >>=20 >>> No, it is so the resolver can resolve dangling service references, insta= lling the bundles would be bad because it would violate the contract of the A= ries application installer which allows you to resolve without installing th= e application. Also when we are installing in an isolated way we need to kno= w the resolution prior to installation, so we would need to install, uninsta= ll then reinstall. >>>=20 >>> Your namespace handler must cope, what is the problem? >>>=20 >>> Alasdair >>>=20 >>> On 27 Sep 2010, at 19:34, Joe Bohn wrote: >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Can you be more specific on the need for the EBA installer to parse the= blueprint xml? Is it to validate that services exported by the EBA are ac= tually defined in some bundle? >>>>=20 >>>> If that is the case, then would it be possible to install the bundle(s)= first and validate exported services against those registered by the variou= s bundles? >>>>=20 >>>> Joe >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 9/27/10 2:16 PM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>>=20 >>>>> I think the simple answer is probably yes. I think it is called once t= o know how to resolve the application, and the second time because we have i= nstalled the framework. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Alasdair >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 27 Sep 2010, at 19:02, Joe Bohn wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> When processing an application (EBA) we parse all of the blueprint.xm= l (including custom namespaces) as part of the application processing for al= l bundles within the EBA. The net result is that we do all of this parsing t= wice because we also must parse and processes the information in the Bluepri= ntContainer. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Why is it necessary to parse the blueprint.xml during EBA installatio= n in the application module? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I stumbled on this because I was making some modifications to a custo= m namespace handler and noticed that it was being invoked twice for the same= elements. It seems that this is not desirable. Should all namespace handl= ers be coded in such a way that they can be invoked multiple times for the e= xact same elements? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Joe >>>>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Joe