Heh, so thats not what i'd like for either of those, so we need to find a way to work this out.
I'd like to avoid _requiring_ some other external config for connecting to the domain which is why encoding it in the URI is good. It could be fine to have the option of some external config if a user really wants to do that, but it doesn't seem particularly user friendly or convenient to requiring yet another non-spec defined mapping file when it works just fine using the mapped value directly in the SCAClientFactory call. Then with the URI scheme, I'd like to avoid using the explicit underlying technology like tribes or hazelcast as thats runtime specific and variable so using a generic one seems better and the runtime and registry impl can map that to what the particular impl can use. ...ant On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > My understanding of the SCA spec is that the domainURI is a unique id for an > SCA domain. What you have in the sample seems to be the physical URI that > can be used to connect to the domain registry. I think they are two > different things and it's probably not a good idea to hard code the physical > address in the client code. > > Here is what I have in mind: > > 1) When a client wants to connect to an SCA domain whose URI is > "urn:com.example/sca/domain1", the code would be: > >> SomeService s = >> >> SCAClientFactory.newInstance("urn:com.example/sca/domain1").getService(SomeService.class, >> "SomeComponent"); > > 2) The client environment would have some of sort configuration to map the > domain URI to the domain registry URI, such as: > urn:com.example/sca/domain1 = tuscany:domain1?remote=9.120.1.1:14820 > urn:com.example/sca/domain2 = tribes://228.0.0.100:50000 > urn:com.example/sca/domain2 = zookeeper:9.120.1.1:14820,9.120.1.2:14820 > > BTW, I prefer to name the scheme to be the protocol such as http, multicast, > tcp or stack name such as hazalcast, tribes, or zookeeper. > > Thanks, > Raymond > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "ant elder" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:09 AM > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: SCAClientFactory domainURI format > >> The OASIS SCAClientFactory uses a domainURI to define the which domain >> to access. In Tuscany today we've various ways thats used that but >> there's never been much discussion about the format of the URI, do we >> need to do that? As an example, here's how the API is used: >> >> SomeService s = >> SCAClientFactory.newInstance(domainURI).getService(SomeService.class, >> "SomeComponent"); >> >> So the domainURI could be things like: >> >> "myDomain" - assumes only the Tuscany SCAClientFactoryImpl on the >> classpath, and that there is a domain in the local JVM called myDomain >> "tuscany:myDomain" - use the Tuscany SCAClientFactoryImpl and there is >> a domain in the local JVM called myDomain >> "tuscany:myDomain?remote=9.120.1.1:14820" - a remote domain called >> myDomain on a remote machine running Tuscany listening on IP address >> 9.120.1.1 port 14820 >> >> I'm not sure we should do the first of those as it would prevent an >> other runtimes SCAClientFactoryImpl from being used. Are we happy with >> the "tuscany" URI prefix, do we need to make that different or >> pluggable? >> >> Any comments, do we want that, or something more, or something different? >> >> ...ant > >
