Re: [ecf-dev] State of the 119 distribution part

[Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.
>   

Ok.

>  
>   
> > 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,
> >     
> ecf,
>   
> > 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 :-)
>   

Yeah...it 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.

Scott


> Cheers, 
>
> Jan.
> _______________________________________________
> ecf-dev mailing list
> ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
>