It sounds like you are asking the runtime to detect operation overloading which seems complex and expensive ( if even doable ) to me. What happens when there truely is an operation naming collision between versions?
Lance On 8/10/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we make no assumptions on the commonality or evolution of interfaces between process versions, then routing should follow the same rules as for routing between different processes. Different process versions would be treated as different processes. Wouldn't we save ourselves some complexity by doing so? alex Maciej Szefler wrote: > The restrictions I proposed are not intended to be a help to the user. > They are intended to ensure that a reasonable implementation is > possible. Requirements 2 and 3 are there because you should know what > the message type of the received message is before you do the version > routing: your communication channel is likely going to be hard-coded to > the same binding for all versions (i.e. you are listening on the same > URL for all versions), and you need to apply correlation logic before > you know what version the message is targeting). So it makes sense that > all version would need to have the same message format. > -mbs >
