[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [ecf-dev] multiple service call
|
Hi Abhisek,
abhisek saikia wrote:
Hi Scott
Existing or new container both are ok for me.For me just the
service call should be successful which i guess should be the major
specification of ECF :).I am currently not going with
container.connect option with multiple containers as it had the defect
for which client(consumer) needs to be started first ,Also been
reproduced by angelo
@ http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg03635.html
Could you and/or Angelo please open a bug about this issue?...and
include the explanation from Angelo in the bug description? Also,
please address this question on the bug:
On the consumer, if the spring framework is creating a container, and
connecting to a targetId with code like this (the following is copied
from Angelo's mailing list post):
protected IContainer createContainer() throws ContainerCreateException,
ContainerConnectException {
IContainer container = super.createBasicContainer();
if (targetId != null) {
container.connect(targetId, connectContext);
}
return container;
}
Whenever this code is executed (e.g. upon startup), then this logic:
if (targetId != null) {
container.connect(targetId, connectContext);
}
*will* synchronously attempt to connect to the service host...and if the
service host is not yet started (whether localhost or some other
process) you will get a a connect exception...e.g. like he got:
Caused by: org.eclipse.ecf.core.ContainerConnectException: Exception
during connection to ecftcp://localhost:3787/server
<stack trace deleted>
... 17 more
Caused by: java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused: connect
This means simply that the spring initialization code is trying to
connect directly to a given host container (i.e. targetId), and that
container hasn't had a chance to startup, register the remote service,
and then publish the remote service for discovery by the consumer. In
other words, the consumer framework startup is racing against the
startup/initialization of the host.
One way to avoid the need to explicitly call container.connect(targetId,
connectContext) at *all* is to (on the consumer) wait until the remote
service is discovered via discovery...and only *then* have the container
connect to the target container. The logic for doing so (i.e. connect
to the target container) is already present in the
DefaultProxyContainerFinder, and the equivalent to targetId is already
included in the metadata available via discovery. One major change in
DefaultProxyContainerFinder *since* the release of ECF 3.2 was
represented by this bug:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=303979
This makes it unnecessary to even create a proxy container in advance of
the service discovery, as after this bug was addressed a container will
be automatically created (if one doesn't already exist) for dealing with
incoming remote services being discovered. In other words, I believe
that with the most recent code from HEAD it should be unnecessary for
the spring framework bean to be created on the consumer side at all.
Both the container creation and the connection can/could all be done
lazily...at remote service discovery time instead of eagerly (at spring
bean creation time).
But I'm probably misunderstanding something about your/Angelo's use
case. So let's please move this to a new bug, however, and we can
discuss further/diagnose/etc on that new bug.
Thanks,
Scott
Anyway as per your suggestion i will try with the unreleased code
chunk of ECF .
Thanks and Regards
Abhisek
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Abhisek,
You seem to be using ECF 3.2 release version (Release date: Feb
19, 2010). There have been a number of bugs fixed since
then...one of which having to do with a problem of not properly
publishing the same service multiple times. For testing, bug
identification, etc I would urge you to get the latest from HEAD,
as we are in the testing phase for ECF 3.3/Helios release right
now...and so it would be most helpful to get some assistance from
the community with testing ECF 3.3/Helios for your specific use
cases. If you need instructions for how to get the lastest from
HEAD in your workspace please let me know...and/or see section
'Anonymous CVS Access to ECF Source Code':
http://www.eclipse.org/ecf/dev_resources.php
abhisek saikia wrote:
Hi Scott
I used org.eclipse.ecf.sdk_3.2.0.v20100219-1253.zip
<http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/rt/ecf/3.2/3.6/org.eclipse.ecf.sdk_3.2.0.v20100219-1253.zip>
My issue is a bit different.I have 2 providers(in 2
different machines) and one consumer in another machine.The
providers implement the same Interface.I am using Service
tracker in consumer side.I am able to receive only one remote
reference.While debugging ECF code i found if a container is
already connected(i.e it already discovered provider in
machine 1),it cant find the remote service reference from
machine 2(as the code has a check for isContainerConnect which
is true while remotelocation becomes machine2, as its already
connected to provider of machine 1) .
A couple of things. First...since 3.2 there has been some
improvement/change of the logic in DefaultProxyContainerFinder wrt
handling of multiple remote services.
Second...it is possible that this represents a bug/problem in the
DefaultProxyContainerFinder for handling your use case.
Third...it's also possible that for your use case there is an
ambiguity about what you want to happen on the multiple-service
consumer...i.e. do you want the *existing* proxy container to be
used, or do you want a *new* container to be created/connected for
this remote service? There are some facilities already present in
ECF to support some of these use cases, so it may be a matter of
figuring out what you wish to happen and then using those facilities.
So...I recommend that you get the latest code from HEAD, and try
this same use case again. If it still has problems then lets
identify them, and we'll address those problems and/or needed
generalization to handle your use case.
Thanks,
Scott
_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev