How about naming the element <serviceGroup> in the service.xml to make it more distinctive from <service>.
That would match with the code too. -- Tom Jordahl Macromedia Server Development > -----Original Message----- > From: Deepal Jayasinghe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Axis2] More about service groups > > Hi all; > > +1 for proposal , > > But I have some comments , > rather than introducing new description file I like to have service.xml > insider archive file and which root element can either be <service> or > <services> , if the root element is <service> I will create > ServiceGroupDescription by giving archive name as group name and the group > only contain one service. In the other hand if the root element is > <services> ServiceGruopDescription will be created by giving archive name > as > Service Group name and all the service in service.xml will belong to that > service group. > > > > Thanks, > Deepal > ................................................................ > ~Future is Open~ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:00 AM > Subject: Re: [Axis2] More about service groups > > > > On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 09:49 +0600, Deepal Jayasinghe wrote: > >> I think we do not need to introduce new archive file or > >> description to solve this problem , so my idea is this > >> no matter archive file contain a service or service-group, the > >> archive file contain service.xml and the it will be like that > >> > >> <services > > >> <service name="Service1"> > >> ........................... > >> ............................ > >> </service> > >> <service name="Service2"> > >> ........................... > >> ............................ > >> </service> > >> </services> > >> > >> So the existing service.xml has to change to this format, > >> > >> and the name of the archive file will be that name of the > >> service group , if the name of the archive file is foo.aar > >> then service-group name will be "foo" and the epr of the > >> services will axis2/services/foo:Service1 > >> and axis2/services/foo:Service2 > >> > >> > >> In addition to that META-INF folder can contain any number of > >> wsdl file , in this case that can contain > >> Service1.wsdl , Service2.wsdl in that case ServiceDescriptions > >> will be created using WSDLs and overide and configure using > >> srevice.xml > > > > This works for the case of >1 service per aar. But what about the simple > > case? Doesn't this force the user to come up with 2 names in that case- > > one for the .aar file and one for the service?? If so that's ugly ... > > > > An alternative is to use one file service.xml (or rename to > > package.xml ??) which contains either > > <service> .. </service> > > or > > <services> > > <service name="s1"> .. </service> > > <service name="s2"> .. </service> > > </services> > > > > The deployment code can figure out which case it is based on the QName > > of the document element. > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > >
