On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Simon Laws<simonsl...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> It does seem loose, and also along with that 2787 in the assembly spec >> the WS binding spec says: >> >> 247 This specification does not mandate any particular way to >> determine the URI for a web services binding on an SCA service. >> >> so it seems we can do what ever we like. >> >> I guess I was asking if we're happy with how it works right now so we >> can try and make it work as consistently and as simply as possible >> across bindings. Using just the componentName (as 1.x does) seems >> simplest for simple cases, but it doesn't seem great to have an >> existing endpoint change if the component is updated to have an >> additional service or binding added. >> >> ...ant >> > > Well it would be a straightforward change to make the uri always > include service name and possibly binding name if that's what we want > to do. Binding name is a bit problematic because it defaults to the > service name which leads to odd URIs. Personally I think the least > variability be embed in our various algorithms the simpler the > implementation and the simpler the user experience. > > Simon >
How about always including component name, service name, and any non-default binding name? That way endpoints would be consistent even when new services or bindings are added/removed from a component. ...ant
