Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ecf-dev] State of the 119 distribution part

Hi Jan,

Rellermeyer Jan Simon wrote:
<stuff deleted>
Well, I resorted to the practical solution: registering the hook and
immediately after processing missed services. This could worst case lead
to duplication, which the distribution software is likely to filter out.
I think the races were more caused by the container manager sometimes
becoming available later than the registry hook wants to access it.


I don't know.  I need to think about this some.  We could support both
container creation (given type as service property) and existing
container access (as it is now)...again with service properties.  But
I'm not clear on whether we should do this.

Ideally, the service should not have to bother about container creation.
Any service written for 119 should just work out of the box. This would,
however, requires the 119 distribution implementation to deal with the
container creation. By default, it should probably create every
container possible and register the service with each of them. If
container instantiators appear later, it should register the service
with the new container type.

Well, it could/rather look for all container type descriptions that return the IRemoteServiceContainerAdapter classname to ContainerTypeDescription.getSupportedAdapterTypes()...and then create instances that don't already exist...and then register with them.

This brings up a spec question for me...what is the desired/spec'd
behavior when multiple distribution systems are present (e.g. cxf,
etc)?  Are all distribution providers expected to respond?

Yes. I am pretty sure that this is the case. As I said before, consider
the service to be written without knowing anything particular about the
distribution software. That's the motivation for spec-ing something like
119 :-) frankly still seems like strange motivation to me frankly...since not knowing/requiring anything about the properties of the distribution software (modulo intents) means the service itself (performance/reliability) will/may not have certain characteristics...but that's another discussion.

Ok...all relevant ECF providers can respond to distribution registrations...and we can use the getSupportedAdapterTypes to decide on relevancy. I'll make sure existing providers define this information on the ContainerTypeDescriptions.


ecf-dev mailing list

Back to the top