On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM, ant elder<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Simon Laws<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 3) We need to map it to an absolute WS URI when it publishes to the endpoint >>> registry (Simon already mentioned that we need to have base URIs for a given >>> node. For the moment, we can just use http://localhost:8080/ as the default) >>> so that the client side sees the physical URI of the remote endpoint. >> >> Right, this is the point about passing default binding information >> into the binding URI calculation. Can we have a node configuration >> file for this kind of info. I'm not suggesting that we use a composite >> file as we do currently in the 1.x domain manager. but a specific XML >> file for configuring the node. Could contain. >> >> node configuration info (if not provided on command line) >> default binding information >> pointer to (or nested) composite file to describe management services >> that node provides (future feature) >> > > This is a piece that has never worked very well in past domain > attempts, because the http host and port is environment dependent and > quite variable and we don't have any way for the runtime to > programatically determine it. What would be better would be to find a > way for the sca binding to not be environment dependent. I guess the > way to do that is to not use the hosting web container for the sca > binding so probably using something other than our binding.ws as the > base for it. An in-VM based binding seems like it would work well for > things like the embeded webapp, tomcat and geronimo environments, when > the tuscany runtime needs to be distributed across JVMs maybe we > should look at a Tribes based transport for the SCA binding as that > could use the same config as the Tribes based endpoint registry. > > ...ant >
I agree that we haven't got this right to date. However I do think we need to look at as its scope is wider than the SCA binding. An in VM binding is certainly what we want for in-JVM calls. Hence I was setting up the build so we can detect this. Re. the cross-JVM case. I don't want to stop you investigating Tribes as an option. It sounds interesting. But an interesting question to understand is how you need to have your network and firewall configured to make it work. We may find that we still need to support point to point protocols for both the endpoint registry and the default binding. Regards Simon
