On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[email protected]> wrote: > Raymond Feng wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The following change breaks the local interface with overloaded methods. I >> add the the compatibility check back for the local operations. This is done >> under r964980. >> >> Thanks, >> Raymond >> >> @@ -224,7 +226,11 @@ public class RuntimeEndpointImpl extends >> for (InvocationChain chain : getInvocationChains()) { >> Operation op = chain.getTargetOperation(); >> >> - if (interfaceContractMapper.isCompatible(operation, op, >> Compatibility.SUBSET)) { >> + // We used to check compatibility here but this is now >> validated when the + // chain is created. As the chain >> operations are the real interface types + // they may be >> incompatible just because they are described in different + >> // IDLs >> + if (operation.getName().equals(op.getName())) { >> invocationChainMap.put(operation, chain); >> return chain; >> } >> > > Also, these recent changes break the support for dynamic interfaces, in > particular: > >> + if (operation.getName().equals(op.getName())) { > > The operation name should be ignored on a dynamic interface. > > The InterfaceContractMapper correctly did that. See the small change I just > made in the 'dynamic' experimental branch [1] to make dynamic interfaces > work again. > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg11135.html > -- > Jean-Sebastien >
Hi Raymond I asked about the test that highlighed this issue for you on the commit message then noticed this thread so I'm repeating the question here. Just want to make sure we've got a full set of tests as I missed the issue when I made the change which worries me. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
