Petals ESB Container

Base folders are not checked at startup

Details

  • Type: Bug Bug
  • Status: New New
  • Resolution: Unresolved
  • Affects Version/s: 3.0.5, 3.1.1, 4.0.0
  • Fix Version/s: None
  • Component/s: None
  • Security Level: Public
  • Description:
    Hide

    The base folders existance are not checked at startup time. For example, if a user defines a petals.home system or environment property, the given directory does not contains all the required folders (repository, work, ...). The process will fail at some step since the root folders are not checked nor created if they do not exist and many services rely on folders.

    Show
    The base folders existance are not checked at startup time. For example, if a user defines a petals.home system or environment property, the given directory does not contains all the required folders (repository, work, ...). The process will fail at some step since the root folders are not checked nor created if they do not exist and many services rely on folders.
  • Environment:
    *

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
Christophe Hamerling added a comment - Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 15:15:24 +0200

It will be nice to have a dedicated service which build the required environment based on the esb type (platform, lightweight,...)

Show
Christophe Hamerling added a comment - Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 15:15:24 +0200 It will be nice to have a dedicated service which build the required environment based on the esb type (platform, lightweight,...)
Hide
Permalink
Christophe DENEUX added a comment - Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 16:00:20 +0200 - edited

For example, with the micro-kernel you can have different implementations of the repository service:

  • the current one based on a filesysem,
  • a new one, for test purposes, memory-based.

I think it's better to have all components inherited from a same interface providing a method to create their environment. Your service will invoke this interface for each component.

Show
Christophe DENEUX added a comment - Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 16:00:20 +0200 - edited For example, with the micro-kernel you can have different implementations of the repository service:
  • the current one based on a filesysem,
  • a new one, for test purposes, memory-based.
I think it's better to have all components inherited from a same interface providing a method to create their environment. Your service will invoke this interface for each component.
Hide
Permalink
Christophe Hamerling added a comment - Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 16:11:01 +0200

You are right, each component must handle things based on their mode.
There is one problem with the current 'API', many things are based on java.io.File : Of course we can imagine to manipulate the classloader to pass our own implementation for the memory-based kernel but I think it is quite complicated. The other solution is to forbid the use of java.io.File in the API, a String (URL/URI) is enough. WDYT?

Show
Christophe Hamerling added a comment - Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 16:11:01 +0200 You are right, each component must handle things based on their mode. There is one problem with the current 'API', many things are based on java.io.File : Of course we can imagine to manipulate the classloader to pass our own implementation for the memory-based kernel but I think it is quite complicated. The other solution is to forbid the use of java.io.File in the API, a String (URL/URI) is enough. WDYT?
Hide
Permalink
Sébastien André added a comment - Thu, 28 Oct 2010 - 10:47:42 +0200

The new version of the launcher performs this check to avoid misconfiguration, but it's still possible to trick him by creating a faked directory tree.

Show
Sébastien André added a comment - Thu, 28 Oct 2010 - 10:47:42 +0200 The new version of the launcher performs this check to avoid misconfiguration, but it's still possible to trick him by creating a faked directory tree.
Hide
Permalink
Christophe DENEUX added a comment - Fri, 29 Oct 2010 - 08:03:01 +0200

Which check ?

Show
Christophe DENEUX added a comment - Fri, 29 Oct 2010 - 08:03:01 +0200 Which check ?
Hide
Permalink
Sébastien André added a comment - Mon, 8 Nov 2010 - 16:40:21 +0100

yes

Show
Sébastien André added a comment - Mon, 8 Nov 2010 - 16:40:21 +0100 yes



People

Dates

  • Created:
    Thu, 16 Sep 2010 - 15:13:38 +0200
    Updated:
    Mon, 8 Nov 2010 - 16:40:21 +0100
Atlassian JIRA (v4.1.2#531) | Report a problem | Request a feature | Contact administrators
Powered by a free Atlassian JIRA open source license for Petals ESB. Try JIRA - bug tracking software for your team.