Who came up with the concept that a "component" is of larger granularity than a "service"? that terminology is just remarkably non-intuitive!
Anne On 7/16/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a longer reply coming but a definite -1 to doing anything this > drastic before 1.0. > > I'll explain further when I write my detailed response .. apologies for > the two-stage note :(. > > Sanjiva. > > On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 21:17 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote: > > Hi Glen; > > > > I think the basic idea is to widen the scope of a componenet! and > > replace service archive with a componenet archive. This allowed number > > of services to share a same class loader. > > > > mm .. seems ok to me (may be need to think bit more before commit my self > > :) ). > > Thanks > > Srinath > > > > On 7/16/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Axis2'ers: > > > > > > I've been thinking recently about a couple of things with respect to > > > Axis2. First of all, the idea that we might want to support some > > > concept of "service groups" - a bunch of individual services which are > > > related somehow (via state, implemented with the same code, etc). > > > Second of all, I'm thinking of building a JBI implementation on top of > > > Axis2, and JBI's notion of "components" are deployable units which can > > > each provide multiple services. > > > > > > What about changing our model slightly to enable "components" to > > > implement more than one Web Service? This would entail, I believe: > > > > > > * Change axis/services to axis/components (just for clarity) > > > > > > * Add a "ComponentContext" level to the context stack between > > > ServiceContext and ConfigurationContext > > > > > > * Components would be "engage()"d just like services (although looking > > > at the code I don't see this for services yet... need to dig around > > > more) > > > > > > * component.xml (replacement for service.xml) would contain 1..N > > > <service> elements each of which looks like the current service.xml, so > > > the minimal one-service file would be > > > <component><service>...</service></component>. We could allow > > > optimizing this to just <service> at the top level too! > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > --Glen > > > > > > >
