perfsonar development work

[ulisses <>]

Hi Loukik!

first of all, thanks so much for your reply

On 2006-08-24 16:20:16, Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
> ulisses wrote:
> >Hi again Loukik!
> >
> >On 2006-08-23 12:44:47, Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
> >  
> >>Ulisses,
> >>
> >>The example below probably fails most rules specified by NMWG :) I guess 
> >>this is the reason why it won't create a DOM object
> >>
> >>- What is the purpose of the metadata element? It has no contents!
> >>- Why do you have a data element inside another data element?
> >>- Why do you have link element containing link meta information inside 
> >>the data element? This clearly belongs under the metadata element (as it 
> >>it meta information)
> >>    
> >
> >yes, I found these problems and corrected already, the following minimal 
> >version of xml also causes the same problem:
> >
> ><nmwg:message id="localhost.localdomain.66dffd41:10d3ab5e77b:-7ffe"
> >    type="TOPSDownloadDBResponse" 
> >    xmlns:nmwg="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/base/2.0/";>
> >    <nmwg:metadata id="TOPSDownloadDBResponseMetadata"/>
> >    <nmwg:data id="TOPSDownloadDBResponse" 
> >    metadataIdRef="TOPSDownloadDBResponseMetadata">
> >        <nmwg:data id="localhost.localdomain.66dffd41:10d3ab5e77b:-7fff">
> >            <nmwgtopo3:link
> >                id="localhost.localdomain.66dffd41:10d3ab5e77b:-8000" 
> >                xmlns:nmwgtopo3="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/topology/l3/3.0/";>
> >                <nmwgtopo3:name>test</nmwgtopo3:name>
> >            </nmwgtopo3:link>
> >        </nmwg:data>
> >    </nmwg:data>
> ></nmwg:message>

> >
> >any hint?
> >  
> Ulisses, I don't quite notice significant changes in the above xml in 
> comparison to the ones you sent in the last email. I am not sure if one 
> data element can be put inside another. I see this being done in the xml 
> you mailed me as well. Has Jason confirmed this to you? Maybe its best 
> to wait for Jason to come back.
> 
> 
> A standard message is usually of this kind. But again, I am only 
> guessing what you are trying to achieve so I might not be right here.
> 
> <nmwg:message id="msg1" type="TOPSDownloadDBResponse" 
>                        xmlns:nmwg="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/base/2.0/";
>                        
> xmlns:nmwgtopo3="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/topology/l3/3.0/";>
> 
>    <nmwg:metadata id="TOPSDownloadDBResponseMetadata">
>        <nmwg:subject id="sub1">
>            <nmwgtopo3:link id="link1">
>                <nmwgtopo3:name type="logical">test</nmwgtopo3:name>
>            </nmwgtopo3:link>
>        </nmwg:subject> 
>    </nmwg:metadata>
> 
>    <nmwg:data id="TOPSDownloadDBResponse" 
>    metadataIdRef="TOPSDownloadDBResponseMetadata">
>    </nmwg:data>
> 
> </nmwg:message>
> 

is extrange to see the data (links in this case) in the metadata element.


> 
> >  
> >>To understand what you are trying to achieve, I have the following 
> >>questions (as I haven't followed up your email thread).
> >>
> >>* what are you trying to achieve? 
> >>    
> >
> >umm.... I'm not sure if I understand what you mean
> >
> >  
> >>* Have you defined all possible message sequences for your service?
> >>    
> >
> >it is an stateless service for now, do you refer to this?
> >  
> No. I meant to ask what are the possible types of requests and responses 
> that your Topology service will be able to handle? Have you discussed 
> these requests and responses with Jason and Martin?

no

> >  
> >>* Are these message sequences agreed upon by NMWG (i.e Martin and Jason)
> >>    
> >
> >maybe you are refering to the xml format/schema used?
> >
> >The following is a document with a more complete xml, including references 
> >within the document,
> >even Jason told me I should use 
> >org.ggf.ns.nmwg.topology.l3.v3_0.Interface, currently I'm using
> >org.ggf.ns.nmwg.topology.base.v3_0.Interface which seems to does the trick.
> >  
[...]
> >  
> >>* If the above two points are done, are you sure your service is 
> >>producing xml messages which are conforming to the agreements you might 
> >>have had with NMWG?
> >>    
> >
> >I think I don't understand what you mean with message sequences, do you 
> >refer to xml schema?
> >  
> I mean to ask whether the requests and responses that you have discussed 
> and agreed to use are the same as the ones your service is generating.

nobody never told me that I had to conform to other than the *.rnc files

I supossed I was the one to define the document, and that I only had to 
conform to this .rnc files.

> >>Finally, if all above are ok, what is the error message being produced 
> >>(look at catalina.out if you are testing it on a deployed service)
> >>    
> >
> >I think that I already asked you previously if it was possible force the 
> >XML to DOM parser to tell in which line it is the error?
> >
> >The output is just:
> >
> ><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> ><nmwg:message xmlns:nmwg="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/base/2.0/"; 
> >id="resultCodeMessage">
> >   <nmwg:metadata id="resultCodeMetadata">
> >      <nmwg:eventType>error.common.parse_error</nmwg:eventType>
> >   </nmwg:metadata>
> >   <nmwg:data id="resultDescriptionData_for_resultCodeMetadata" 
> >   metadataIdRef="resultCodeMetadata">
> >      <nmwg:datum value="Cannot convert Message to DOM" />
> >   </nmwg:data>
> ></nmwg:message>
> >
> >I don't see any XML/DOM errors in the tomcat logs
> >  
> Ok, if no logs are being generated to explain the error, I would suggest 
> to add an entry in bugzilla asking for this feature. Can you do this?

yes, I will do in a moment

Thanks & have a nice weekend

regards

        Ulisses