4:36 p.m.
As a means of not polluting the existing framework too much but to add some needed
flow of control functionality for post processing, I've been playing around with
adding a new pipeline, POST. The intent of pipeline POST is to provide a place
to add a defined order of post processing of rules flagged during the analysis
phase. I've added attribute "id" to the xpath-value rule. The 'id'
is ref-ed
by rules in POST. Within POST "action" rules are provided with 0 or more ids
to be associated with an action. A list of actions are processed in the order they
are defined.
The problem I am encountering with this design is that all POST pipeline contents are
merged into a single POST pipeline class for the analysis phase. This can be
a problem if there is more than 1 POST pipeline acting upon the same ref ID.
For example if switchyard and airport both altered some_common.xml file the
last one who touched it wins. I don't see any easy way to instruct Windup
to only run switchyard if there are multiple POST pipelines present.
There is the same last-in problem if the action is associated directly with the
xpath-value rule
and there is some product specific information being placed in the file.
I suppose I could add a cmd-line option and require the user to point to the file
containing the POST pipeline to run.
I really hate to require that of the user however.
I'm open to suggestions.
Here is a general idea of what the pipeline would look like.
<windup:pipeline type="POST" id="My Switchyard Post Processor
Pipeline">
<windup:post-process
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.SwitchyardController">
<windup:decorators>
<windup:action
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Service">
<property name="references">
<list>
<value>switchyard:Action:create service</value>
<value>switchyard:Action:set ref</value>
</list>
</property>
</windup:action>
<windup:action
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Binding">
<property name="references">
<list>
<value>switchyard:Action:binding config
jms-bus</value>
<value>switchyard:Action:binding config camel</value>
</list>
</property>
</windup:action>
<!--
<windup:action
class="org.jboss.post.process.common.ConfigUpdate">
<property name="references">
<list>
<value>Adjust:some_common.xml file</value>
</list>
</property>
</windup:action>
<windup:decorators>
</windup:post-process>
</windup:pipeline>
4:43 p.m.
Could the post pipelines be ordered first and then order the id's?
Robb Greathouse
Partner Enablement
Middleware Business Unit
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
cellphone 505-507-4906
----- Original Message -----
As a means of not polluting the existing framework too much but to add some
needed
flow of control functionality for post processing, I've been playing around
with
adding a new pipeline, POST. The intent of pipeline POST is to provide a
place
to add a defined order of post processing of rules flagged during the
analysis
phase. I've added attribute "id" to the xpath-value rule. The
'id' is
ref-ed
by rules in POST. Within POST "action" rules are provided with 0 or more ids
to be associated with an action. A list of actions are processed in the
order they
are defined.
The problem I am encountering with this design is that all POST pipeline
contents are
merged into a single POST pipeline class for the analysis phase. This can be
a problem if there is more than 1 POST pipeline acting upon the same ref ID.
For example if switchyard and airport both altered some_common.xml file the
last one who touched it wins. I don't see any easy way to instruct Windup
to only run switchyard if there are multiple POST pipelines present.
There is the same last-in problem if the action is associated directly with
the xpath-value rule
and there is some product specific information being placed in the file.
I suppose I could add a cmd-line option and require the user to point to the
file containing the POST pipeline to run.
I really hate to require that of the user however.
I'm open to suggestions.
Here is a general idea of what the pipeline would look like.
<windup:pipeline type="POST" id="My Switchyard Post Processor
Pipeline">
<windup:post-process
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.SwitchyardController">
<windup:decorators>
<windup:action
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Service">
<property name="references">
<list>
<value>switchyard:Action:create service</value>
<value>switchyard:Action:set ref</value>
</list>
</property>
</windup:action>
<windup:action
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Binding">
<property name="references">
<list>
<value>switchyard:Action:binding config
jms-bus</value>
<value>switchyard:Action:binding config
camel</value>
</list>
</property>
</windup:action>
<!--
<windup:action
class="org.jboss.post.process.common.ConfigUpdate">
<property name="references">
<list>
<value>Adjust:some_common.xml file</value>
</list>
</property>
</windup:action>
<windup:decorators>
</windup:post-process>
</windup:pipeline>
4:50 p.m.
No a pipeline is the top level grouping object.
For example an XML pipeline has all the xpath-value rules in it.
A JAVA pipleline has all the java-value rules in it. ... etc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robb Greathouse" <robb.greathouse(a)redhat.com>
To: "Rebecca Searls" <rsearls(a)redhat.com>
Cc: windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:43:26 AM
Subject: Re: POST pipeline exploration
Could the post pipelines be ordered first and then order the id's?
Robb Greathouse
Partner Enablement
Middleware Business Unit
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
cellphone 505-507-4906
----- Original Message -----
>
> As a means of not polluting the existing framework too much but to add some
> needed
> flow of control functionality for post processing, I've been playing around
> with
> adding a new pipeline, POST. The intent of pipeline POST is to provide a
> place
> to add a defined order of post processing of rules flagged during the
> analysis
> phase. I've added attribute "id" to the xpath-value rule. The
'id' is
> ref-ed
> by rules in POST. Within POST "action" rules are provided with 0 or more
> ids
> to be associated with an action. A list of actions are processed in the
> order they
> are defined.
>
> The problem I am encountering with this design is that all POST pipeline
> contents are
> merged into a single POST pipeline class for the analysis phase. This can
> be
> a problem if there is more than 1 POST pipeline acting upon the same ref
> ID.
> For example if switchyard and airport both altered some_common.xml file the
> last one who touched it wins. I don't see any easy way to instruct Windup
> to only run switchyard if there are multiple POST pipelines present.
>
> There is the same last-in problem if the action is associated directly with
> the xpath-value rule
> and there is some product specific information being placed in the file.
>
>
> I suppose I could add a cmd-line option and require the user to point to
> the
> file containing the POST pipeline to run.
> I really hate to require that of the user however.
>
> I'm open to suggestions.
>
>
> Here is a general idea of what the pipeline would look like.
>
> <windup:pipeline type="POST" id="My Switchyard Post Processor
Pipeline">
>
> <windup:post-process
> class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.SwitchyardController">
>
> <windup:decorators>
> <windup:action
> class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Service">
> <property name="references">
> <list>
> <value>switchyard:Action:create service</value>
> <value>switchyard:Action:set ref</value>
> </list>
> </property>
> </windup:action>
>
> <windup:action
> class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Binding">
> <property name="references">
> <list>
> <value>switchyard:Action:binding config
> jms-bus</value>
> <value>switchyard:Action:binding config
> camel</value>
> </list>
> </property>
> </windup:action>
>
> <!--
> <windup:action
> class="org.jboss.post.process.common.ConfigUpdate">
> <property name="references">
> <list>
> <value>Adjust:some_common.xml file</value>
> </list>
> </property>
> </windup:action>
>
> <windup:decorators>
> </windup:post-process>
>
> </windup:pipeline>
>
>
5:06 p.m.
I was working off your statement "if there is more than 1 POST pipeline".
If there is only one pipeline then the pipeline could be control ordering. Can it provide
a constraint that id's must be unique within the pipeline?
Robb Greathouse
Partner Enablement
Middleware Business Unit
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
cellphone 505-507-4906
----- Original Message -----
No a pipeline is the top level grouping object.
For example an XML pipeline has all the xpath-value rules in it.
A JAVA pipleline has all the java-value rules in it. ... etc
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robb Greathouse" <robb.greathouse(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Rebecca Searls" <rsearls(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:43:26 AM
> Subject: Re: POST pipeline exploration
>
> Could the post pipelines be ordered first and then order the id's?
>
> Robb Greathouse
> Partner Enablement
> Middleware Business Unit
> JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
> cellphone 505-507-4906
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > As a means of not polluting the existing framework too much but to add
> > some
> > needed
> > flow of control functionality for post processing, I've been playing
> > around
> > with
> > adding a new pipeline, POST. The intent of pipeline POST is to provide a
> > place
> > to add a defined order of post processing of rules flagged during the
> > analysis
> > phase. I've added attribute "id" to the xpath-value rule. The
'id' is
> > ref-ed
> > by rules in POST. Within POST "action" rules are provided with 0 or
more
> > ids
> > to be associated with an action. A list of actions are processed in the
> > order they
> > are defined.
> >
> > The problem I am encountering with this design is that all POST pipeline
> > contents are
> > merged into a single POST pipeline class for the analysis phase. This
> > can
> > be
> > a problem if there is more than 1 POST pipeline acting upon the same ref
> > ID.
> > For example if switchyard and airport both altered some_common.xml file
> > the
> > last one who touched it wins. I don't see any easy way to instruct
> > Windup
> > to only run switchyard if there are multiple POST pipelines present.
> >
> > There is the same last-in problem if the action is associated directly
> > with
> > the xpath-value rule
> > and there is some product specific information being placed in the file.
> >
> >
> > I suppose I could add a cmd-line option and require the user to point to
> > the
> > file containing the POST pipeline to run.
> > I really hate to require that of the user however.
> >
> > I'm open to suggestions.
> >
> >
> > Here is a general idea of what the pipeline would look like.
> >
> > <windup:pipeline type="POST" id="My Switchyard Post
Processor Pipeline">
> >
> > <windup:post-process
> >
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.SwitchyardController">
> >
> > <windup:decorators>
> > <windup:action
> > class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Service">
> > <property name="references">
> > <list>
> > <value>switchyard:Action:create
service</value>
> > <value>switchyard:Action:set ref</value>
> > </list>
> > </property>
> > </windup:action>
> >
> > <windup:action
> > class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Binding">
> > <property name="references">
> > <list>
> > <value>switchyard:Action:binding config
> > jms-bus</value>
> > <value>switchyard:Action:binding config
> > camel</value>
> > </list>
> > </property>
> > </windup:action>
> >
> > <!--
> > <windup:action
> > class="org.jboss.post.process.common.ConfigUpdate">
> > <property name="references">
> > <list>
> > <value>Adjust:some_common.xml file</value>
> > </list>
> > </property>
> > </windup:action>
> >
> > <windup:decorators>
> > </windup:post-process>
> >
> > </windup:pipeline>
> >
> >
>
5:10 p.m.
There are multiple XML and JAVA pipelines in Windup today.
I only just discovered that all the XML pipeline data is merged into a single object. The
same for JAVA and POST.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robb Greathouse" <robb.greathouse(a)redhat.com>
To: "Rebecca Searls" <rsearls(a)redhat.com>
Cc: windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:06:49 AM
Subject: Re: POST pipeline exploration
I was working off your statement "if there is more than 1 POST pipeline".
If there is only one pipeline then the pipeline could be control ordering.
Can it provide a constraint that id's must be unique within the pipeline?
Robb Greathouse
Partner Enablement
Middleware Business Unit
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
cellphone 505-507-4906
----- Original Message -----
>
> No a pipeline is the top level grouping object.
> For example an XML pipeline has all the xpath-value rules in it.
> A JAVA pipleline has all the java-value rules in it. ... etc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robb Greathouse" <robb.greathouse(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Rebecca Searls" <rsearls(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:43:26 AM
> > Subject: Re: POST pipeline exploration
> >
> > Could the post pipelines be ordered first and then order the id's?
> >
> > Robb Greathouse
> > Partner Enablement
> > Middleware Business Unit
> > JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
> > cellphone 505-507-4906
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > As a means of not polluting the existing framework too much but to add
> > > some
> > > needed
> > > flow of control functionality for post processing, I've been playing
> > > around
> > > with
> > > adding a new pipeline, POST. The intent of pipeline POST is to provide
> > > a
> > > place
> > > to add a defined order of post processing of rules flagged during the
> > > analysis
> > > phase. I've added attribute "id" to the xpath-value rule.
The 'id' is
> > > ref-ed
> > > by rules in POST. Within POST "action" rules are provided with
0 or
> > > more
> > > ids
> > > to be associated with an action. A list of actions are processed in
> > > the
> > > order they
> > > are defined.
> > >
> > > The problem I am encountering with this design is that all POST
> > > pipeline
> > > contents are
> > > merged into a single POST pipeline class for the analysis phase. This
> > > can
> > > be
> > > a problem if there is more than 1 POST pipeline acting upon the same
> > > ref
> > > ID.
> > > For example if switchyard and airport both altered some_common.xml file
> > > the
> > > last one who touched it wins. I don't see any easy way to instruct
> > > Windup
> > > to only run switchyard if there are multiple POST pipelines present.
> > >
> > > There is the same last-in problem if the action is associated directly
> > > with
> > > the xpath-value rule
> > > and there is some product specific information being placed in the
> > > file.
> > >
> > >
> > > I suppose I could add a cmd-line option and require the user to point
> > > to
> > > the
> > > file containing the POST pipeline to run.
> > > I really hate to require that of the user however.
> > >
> > > I'm open to suggestions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is a general idea of what the pipeline would look like.
> > >
> > > <windup:pipeline type="POST" id="My Switchyard Post
Processor
> > > Pipeline">
> > >
> > > <windup:post-process
> > >
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.SwitchyardController">
> > >
> > > <windup:decorators>
> > > <windup:action
> > >
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Service">
> > > <property name="references">
> > > <list>
> > > <value>switchyard:Action:create
service</value>
> > > <value>switchyard:Action:set
ref</value>
> > > </list>
> > > </property>
> > > </windup:action>
> > >
> > > <windup:action
> > >
class="org.jboss.post.process.switchyard.Binding">
> > > <property name="references">
> > > <list>
> > > <value>switchyard:Action:binding config
> > > jms-bus</value>
> > > <value>switchyard:Action:binding config
> > > camel</value>
> > > </list>
> > > </property>
> > > </windup:action>
> > >
> > > <!--
> > > <windup:action
> > >
class="org.jboss.post.process.common.ConfigUpdate">
> > > <property name="references">
> > > <list>
> > > <value>Adjust:some_common.xml
file</value>
> > > </list>
> > > </property>
> > > </windup:action>
> > >
> > > <windup:decorators>
> > > </windup:post-process>
> > >
> > > </windup:pipeline>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
3945
days inactive
3945
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Rebecca Searls -
Robb Greathouse