Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 332848 - [Discovery][ZooDiscovery] ZooDiscovery fails to interact with CompositeDiscoveryContainer
Summary: [Discovery][ZooDiscovery] ZooDiscovery fails to interact with CompositeDiscov...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: ECF
Classification: RT
Component: ecf.providers (show other bugs)
Version: 3.5.0   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.5.0   Edit
Assignee: Wim Jongman CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-12-17 09:08 EST by Markus Kuppe CLA
Modified: 2011-03-06 06:41 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Markus Kuppe CLA 2010-12-17 09:08:00 EST
ZooDiscovery fails to interact with CompositeDiscoveryContainer
Comment 1 Markus Kuppe CLA 2010-12-17 09:37:35 EST
While working on this is stumbled over org.eclipse.ecf.provider.zookeeper.core.ZooDiscoveryServiceTypeID that creates a unique servicetype per service. Why is this necessary?
Comment 2 Markus Kuppe CLA 2010-12-17 09:41:44 EST
Btw. the reason I'm asking is, that this makes it impossible to deregister a service with a generic ECF Discovery API IServiceInfo obj.
Comment 3 Markus Kuppe CLA 2010-12-17 09:54:27 EST
Released http://git.eclipse.org/c/ecf/org.eclipse.ecf.git/commit/?id=ebe061c66acbe63514c9b7a32cb1067c496babcc to make ZooDiscovery register under .locator as well as .advertiser in the ExtensionPoint registry.
Comment 4 Wim Jongman CLA 2011-03-04 03:19:38 EST
Is this fixed with your patch Markus?
Comment 5 Markus Kuppe CLA 2011-03-04 07:50:07 EST
IIRC it's not. Problem is that ZooDiscovery appends some random string to either IServiceTypeID or IServiceID (can't remember which one) which essential breaks CDC.
Comment 6 Wim Jongman CLA 2011-03-05 07:04:38 EST
Adding Ahmed, moving to next release.
Comment 7 Wim Jongman CLA 2011-03-06 06:39:23 EST
duplicate of 339024?
Comment 8 Wim Jongman CLA 2011-03-06 06:40:09 EST
duplicate of 339024

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 339024 ***