Luciano, Mike: thanks for the detailed answer. Yes, I am aware there are different types. I am not so concerned having to declare an implementation within the same domain. As a matter of fact, it looks to me that it is not even within an entire domain, but within a composite since there is an implementation type which is "implementation.composite", so the scope to which an implementation declaration is exposed is fairly limited (which is good).
I am more concerned of "cross domain" interactions and in particular how, say, a .Net based web service gets "assembled". In that case you won't be able to find a valid implementation to expose as a composite. In "cross domain" interactions you are also left to use Web Services technologies (which I'm fine with, it'd be a shame to find no real use for WS-* after all this energy spent :-). Do you have a sample for that use case? thanks, JJ- On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Mike Edwards < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote: > >> Luciano: >> >> thanks, actually in the test/bpel/helloworld-reference composite >> definition >> you also have a component defined with a binding.ws and there to, there >> is >> an implementation.java element. Is it required? >> >> <!-- Simple ws-reference --> >> <!-- >> <component name="HelloWorldService"> >> <implementation.java class="helloworld.HelloWorldServiceImpl"/> >> <reference name="greetingsService"> >> <binding.ws uri="http://localhost:8085/GreetingsService"/> >> </reference> >> </component> >> --> >> >> Would you consider ws bindings as the preferred way to implement cross >> domain composites? >> >> JJ- >> >> Jean-Jacques, > > There may be a misunderstanding going on here.... > > Where there is a component in SCA, that says that there is a piece of code > present which implements some function - and that the code provides function > via one or more services and consumes function provided elsewhere through > zero or more references. > > That code is called an implementation - and the implementation can be any > one of many kinds - Java, BPEL, C++, JavaScript, Ruby, etc. But there must > be an implementation of some kind - and the component declaration is obliged > to point at one. > > In this case, the HelloWorldService component has an implementation that is > a Java POJO - the class > helloworld.HelloWorldServiceImpl. While this test could have used some > other implementation type such as BPEL, it IS required to have SOME > implementation - otherwise there is no function that the component can > provide. > > The fact that the implementation is a Java POJO does not prevent the > service interface or the reference interface being declared using WSDL and > it also does not prevent the service or reference using a binding that is a > Web service binding also using a WSDL, should that be desirable. > > Here is a simple example of a component implemented by a BPEL process and > exposed as a Web service: > > <composite xmlns="http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"; > targetNamespace="http://bpel"; > xmlns:hns=" > http://tuscany.apache.org/implementation/bpel/example/helloworld"; > name="bpel"> > > <component name="BPELHelloWorldComponent"> > <implementation.bpel process="hns:HelloWorld"/> > <service name="helloPartnerLink"> > <interface.wsdl > interface=" > http://tuscany.apache.org/implementation/bpel/example/helloworld.wsdl# > wsdl.interface(HelloPortType)" /> > <binding.ws /> > </service> > </component> > > </composite> > > ....no Java in sight ! > > PS - you will find that component in a new BPEL Sample I've recently > committed to the Tuscany SVN - called "helloworld-bpel-ws". > > Yours, Mike. > -- Jean-Jacques Dubray 425-445-4467
