[Zoo-discuss] Java services sharing the same class

[Fenoy Gerald]

Hello Francesco,
looking at the mail object, I would answer that it is already possible.

In the hello-java directory available here [1], we have an example of 2 services sharing the same Java class. Obviously, as they are different services they also have different names and implementations.

There is no issue in requesting to define a Java service in a different way. Nevertheless, I have to admit that I don’t get the advantages of adding this capability.
In case you define 2 services using the exact same implementation, then it means that they are the exact same service, so why defining it twice. Maybe to define different default value ? In such a case you may also simply create a different directory, with symlink to the Java class inside it and the corresponding zcfg (with the required default values).

I don’t see any issue in implementing the Java support the way you proposed, but I would like you to give more informations on the advantages it gives.

Best regards,

[1] http://zoo-project.org/trac/browser/trunk/zoo-project/zoo-services/hello-java


> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 18:43, Francesco Barchetta <francesco.barchetta at terradue.com> a écrit :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> In order to have the possibility to add dynamically a new Java service to the WPS server, it would be useful for me to exploit the same java class (AND methods) from different .zcfg files .
> I understand that this is not possible at the moment due to some name limitations (from the doc):
> 
>> For each Service provided by your ZOO Java Services Provider (your corresponding Java class), the ZCFG File should have the name of the Java public method corresponding to the service (case-sensitive).
> 
> Anyway I see three simple changes to the kernel to enable this behavior :
> 
> 1) Adding the possibility to specify the WPS Identifier in the .zcfg file (not related to any methods).
> 2) Adding the possibility to specify the main method identifier in the .zcfg file .
> 3) Adding the possibility to specify the serviceProvider at the generic or profile level .
> 
> What do you think? Any chances to see one of these implemented one day? 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Francesco._______________________________________________
> Zoo-discuss mailing list
> Zoo-discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/zoo-discuss



Gérald Fenoy
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Djay