On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:25 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Issues 3: Given that callback endpoints are put into the registry >>>>> there is a danger that they will be mistakenly matched for forward >>>>> endpoint when just the component name is provided as input to the >>>>> match. >>>> >>>> For issue 3 about callback endpoints getting found in the registry by >>>> accident how about instead of tacking "Callback" on the service name >>>> put it on the component name? >>>> >>>> ...ant >>>> >>> >>> Do you mean in the xml that fluffed up when an endpoint is serialized? >>> If so yes, I agree, something like that would work. >>> >> >> Thats not quite what i meant but i've just had a look and the code >> doesn't work the way it used to now so what i was thinking wont help. >> If we did more complete interface matching when picking an endpoint >> instead of just picking the first one would this issue go away? Didn't >> Greg raise a JIRA or post to the ML about doing that a little while >> back? >> >> ...ant >> > > The problem with relying on remote interface matching is that it's > difficult to be absolutely sure that two interfaces don't match, In > some cases we'll have to defer to the runtime. For example, some Java > types can't be converted to XML by JAXB so trying to match XML types > will fail. Now I admit you'd have to be pretty unlucky to have you're > callback interface match your forward interface in everything but type > details. However I'm becoming increasingly skeptical about the > performance of remote interface matching. You may have noticed I've > turned if off temporarily. There seem to be several situations where > it doesn't work properly which I don't understand well enough to > articulate in a post yet. It's likely this is just lack of databinding > understanding on my part. We'll see. > > Simon > > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >
Although, looking at it, it does seem a shame to have to clutter the endpoint resolution mechanism with callback discrimination code. Hmmm. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
