On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ant, you are right. Each binding under the same service/reference should >> have a unique name, no matter if they are of the same type or not. >> >> BTW, we should now compare binding types using the QName >> (binding.getType()). > > The scenario I have is the following : > > <component name="ShoppingCartManager"> > <implementation.java class="services.ShoppingCartManager"/> > <service name="ShoppingCart"> > <tuscany:binding.jsonrpc uri="/ShoppingCart"/> > </service> > <reference name="userService" target="UserService"> > <binding.sca/> > </reference> > </component> > > <component name="UserService"> > <implementation.java > class="org.apache.tuscany.sca.cloud.user.impl.GoogleUserService"/> > <service name="UserService"> > <binding.sca/> > <tuscany:binding.jsonrpc uri="/User"/> > </service> > </component> > > With the code we had, the binding name was being set as the contract > name, so there was no way we could have two bindings for the same > service... checking the 1.x code, I saw we had basically the same > algorithm, but we were allowing different binding types... so I guess > we should change the way we set the binding name. > > Thoughts ? > >
I guess one way to solve this would be to set the name on the binding element on the composite. I'll make this change on my application and revert the runtime changes. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
