ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Simon Laws<[email protected]> wrote:
It does seem loose, and also along with that 2787 in the assembly spec
the WS binding spec says:
247 This specification does not mandate any particular way to
determine the URI for a web services binding on an SCA service.
so it seems we can do what ever we like.
I guess I was asking if we're happy with how it works right now so we
can try and make it work as consistently and as simply as possible
across bindings. Using just the componentName (as 1.x does) seems
simplest for simple cases, but it doesn't seem great to have an
existing endpoint change if the component is updated to have an
additional service or binding added.
...ant
Well it would be a straightforward change to make the uri always
include service name and possibly binding name if that's what we want
to do. Binding name is a bit problematic because it defaults to the
service name which leads to odd URIs. Personally I think the least
variability be embed in our various algorithms the simpler the
implementation and the simpler the user experience.
Simon
How about always including component name, service name, and any
non-default binding name?
That way endpoints would be consistent even when new services or
bindings are added/removed from a component.
...ant
+1 to Ant's proposal.
Yours, Mike
PS The specs are quite deliberately vague - app servers have their own ways of
doing these things.
