On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Would it be better if the policy definitions stuff was moved to the >> binding-ws module so it can be shared by all runtime impls? Don't know >> if there are any problems with doing that, can you see any issues >> before i go try? >> >> ...ant >> > > I would say no as the definitions.xml file is a statement of the > properties of the binding implementation rather than the binding > model. For example, it's likely that the RI implementation doesn't > support asynInvocation while the Axis based binding does. > > I'm guessing you would like to include it as it provides ws support > with few dependencies. For the time being though it doesn't seem too > much to ask for the user to specify it as an extension. > > Simon > > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >
So I found that I have missed committing a file so you weren't seeing precisely what I was seeing. I've added it now and managed to get a clean build through. The two changes I've to made to base-runtime are: remove binding-ws-runtime-ri to prevent problems with duplicate policy add core-runtime as itest/async-interactions has some dependency on wsdlgen I can either commit these change or if you want to fix them in some other way please go ahead. Regards Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
