[cddlm] Problems using Muse

[Ayla Debora Dantas de Souza - Projeto Ourgrid]

Hi Stuart,

thanks for answering and for your explanation.
In fact, I thought there should be a "DeploymentFault " element in the 
deployment-api schema or the "ComponentFault" element from the component 
model should be renamed to "DeploymentFault" or a new element should be 
defined there with this name and of type "DeploymentFaultType". When I 
tried these two latter choices, it worked out with no problems in Muse 
and the DeploymentFaultException was generated.

 However,  I think Muse should work even without any changes, but maybe 
with these changes, it does not sound so strange as I pointed out. 
Besides that, some other errors that were also thrown in the Beta 
version do not occur with the SNAPSHOT one, which is good.

So, I will try to access the Portal and System "skeleton" services, 
which are being deployed, and I'll try to better understand Muse through 
its code, but I still want your opinion about using Muse.

Best regards,
  Ayla




Stuart Schaefer wrote:

>Ayla,
>
>The "DeploymentFaultType" is the base of all CDDLM faults used by the
>component model and deployment API.  The ComponentFault is a fault
>generated by a component implementing the component model.  It adds no
>other elements to the DeploymentFaultType.
>
>The deployment api defines the DeploymentFault. It should not be of type
>ComponentFault unless a fault is generated by a component.
>
>Either way, the wsdl and xsd are valid.  Not sure why Muse is upset.
>
>Stuart
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ayla Debora Dantas de Souza - Projeto Ourgrid
>[mailto:ayla at dsc.ufcg.edu.br] 
>Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:59 PM
>To: Steve Loughran
>Cc: 'cddlm-wg at ggf.org'
>Subject: Re: [cddlm] Problems using Muse
>
>Hi,
>
>So, do you think Muse is a dead end?
>
>I created by hand the "DeploymentFaultException" based on the 
>"ComponentFaultException" which was generated and the compilation and 
>deployment with Muse worked out.  It may be a problem with Muse, but I 
>thought it was strange to see a message called "DeploymentFault" 
>pointing to an element called "ComponentFault" which was of the type 
>"DeploymentFaultType". That's why I'm not sure that this is not a 
>problem with the specification. Does anyone see any problem in this part
>
>of the specification?
>
>Regarding Muse use, I really appreciate your opinion about it. This 
>latest version seems to be better, but now I would have to learn how to 
>communicate with the deployed services and insert code into the 
>generated code which will actually be the deployment engine. Steve gave 
>me the advice of looking at their source code, as Muse documentation is 
>not complete.
>
>  Ayla
>
>
>Steve Loughran wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Ayla Debora Dantas de Souza - Projeto Ourgrid wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>when I've changed to the new released version (in fact a SNAPSHOT) of
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>Muse and I try to compile the generated code for the portal and 
>>>system services, even do not changing anything in the generated code,
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>I get an error indicating that the "DeploymentFaultException" file is
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>missing (it was not generated). I saw that the 
>>>"ComponentFaultException" was generated. I think that maybe there is 
>>>a problem with the deployment-api.wsdl, in the part:
>>>
>>>   <wsdl:message name="DeploymentFault">
>>>       <wsdl:part name="fault" element="cmp:ComponentFault"/>
>>>   </wsdl:message>
>>>
>>>When I look at the component-model.xsd file cmp:ComponentFault 
>>>element, I see that its type is cmp:DeploymentFaultType.
>>>
>>>I'm trying to solve it in several ways, but with my changes I get 
>>>other exceptions. Does someone have an idea?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I think you are in the wonderful world of WSDL2Java generated stuff. 
>>Ed and I wrote paper critiquing that very thing ( 
>>http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2005/HPL-2005-83.html )
>>
>>the short term solution is to raise it with the muse mail list; point 
>>them at the XSD/WSDL and see if it is a bug on their side.   I suspect
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>they could do with more test WSDL/XSD and so to get ours in there 
>>would be a good bit of integration.
>>
>>Long term (2 weeks plus), well, we need to do a new SOAP stack, dont
>>    
>>
>we?
>  
>
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/cddlm-wg/attachments/20050622/6f48fa24/attachment.htm