Home
The Toolkit for Online Communities
17108 Community Members, 0 members online, 2291 visitors today
Log In Register
OpenACS Home : Forums : OpenACS Development : Namespaces instead of service-contracts? : One Message

Forum OpenACS Development: Re: Namespaces instead of service-contracts?

Collapse
Posted by Tilmann Singer on
Some things that can be done additionally with service contracts:

  • Bindings can be deactivated via a webinterface and the deactivation will be made persistent in the db.
  • Automatic discovery of procedure signatures.
  • Easier publication to the outside via XMLRPC or similar protocols since it is based on WDSL (not sure if I got that right).
  • It provides an ID for each implementation.

I think none of these facilities are crucial to 99% of the ways service contracts are or could be used within the toolkit.

Regarding the dynamic deactivation: that would still be perfectly possible when using namespaces only, by simply using the tcl rename command. This could even be made persistent my setting up a a loop upon server startup that renames all deactivated implementations.

Regarding automatic discovery - I have no idea when that would be used besides some really esoteric implementations (besides you can still sort of do that with ad_proc, no?), and the publication to the outside via xmlrpc is a desirable thing but would propably require an extra layer of control in most cases anyway (as opposed to automatically publishing all implementations of on sc automatically or whatever was intended with sc's), so I don't see a big problem in writing extra tcl wrapper procs or setting up some other system besides the sc system for the functionality that one wants to publish to the outside.

The implementation ID is used e.g. in acs-authentication's auth_authorities table to dynamically associate rows in the table with an implementation. As far as I can see an implementation key as string like described below would serve the same purpose - hopefully I'm not missing anything here.

DaveB: are you sure there are no db calls involved? I see this in my log everytime the search indexer finds an item to index:

Notice: Querying 'select acs_sc_binding__exists_p('FtsContentProvider','radio_emission');'

To be more precise what I envision as an alternative system, and I guess that's the same what DaveB and Dirk imagine, I'll try to sketch it out a bit more, possibly repeating what has been said before. This is not (yet) a concrete proposal for any changes. I'd just like to think loud about what could be theoretically possible, and if it would make any sense to order my loose thoughts.

1) It is used for internal use only - to foster the interopability of different OpenACS packages using standard and thus easy to grasp tcl techniques, and retaining the modularity and independency of the packages that interoperate.

2) Define a clear naming rule for service contracts using tcl namespaces. E.g. like this:

package_key::service_contract_name

And the individual implementations would look like this:

package_key::service_contract_name::impl::object_type

The ::impl:: in between makes it clear only by looking at the proc name that it is an implementation of a service contract.

3) Checking wether an implementation for a specific object type exists would go like this: if { [llength [info commands package_key::service_contract_name::impl::$object_type]] }, and invoking all implementations of one contract as easy as:

foreach cmd { [info commands package_key::service_contract_name::impl::*] } {
    if { [catch {
        eval $cmd $args
    } errmsg] } {
        ns_log error "Error for $cmd $args"
    }
}

4) Some way to formally specify a contract like acs_sc::contract::new_from_spec. I wonder though if it wouldn't be possible and easier to do it with something that resembles ad_proc, like this:

ad_interface package_key::service_contract_name { arg1 arg2 arg3 ... } {

    Here goes the documentation of the interface package_key::service_contract_name.

    Authors are advised to put in exact definitions of the expected parameter values,
    the return value and what happens in case of an error.

    @author me

} 

I think in the beginning ad_interface doesn't need to be more than a descriptive helper, making the doc and the signature appear in the api-doc. Maybe later a way can be added to formally check for the correctness of each implementation somehow, but I don't think that is essential since we can never avoid developers shooting themselves in the foot anyway, and the current acs-service-contract offers a lot of possibilities for that too.

Dirk, Don and me have been talking a little about this and as far as I could see there was consensus that a change like this would be very benefitial. I would like to experiment further with the suggestions made here by adding this method to the search package (locally), so that it becomes easier to search-enable arbitrary content, and based on the experiences write a TIP, hopefully in time for 5.1.

There seems to be no reason why this method couldn't run with the existing acs-service-contract stuff in parallel, so it won't break any existing code.