Yes, that's the text that was bothering me. It isn't very well worded. Anyway I think we're ok.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Greg Dritschler > <greg.dritsch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I thought this over again, and based on everything Mike has said, I think > my > > proposed fix is wrong. pushDownEndpointReferences() is adding targets > from > > a component reference to its "leaf" component reference. This should > always > > be an add operation, never a replace. That's why ASM_5023 is now > failing. > > > > nonOverridable only applies between the composite ref and its promoted > > component ref within the same composite. So far I haven't found the code > > where the targets are resolved between a composite ref and its promoted > > component ref. > > Greg > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> i've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3912 to > >> cover this. From the set of four failures I originally saw on a full > >> build three are some bogus HTTP endpoint failure. The remaining is > >> TUSCNAY-5023 which we need to look at. > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> -- > >> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > >> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com > > > > > > Greg, I think you're having the same doubts that I was having when I > suggested that the previous example was wrong. I concluded that they > were correct after all and for me it hinged on what you say here > "nonOverridable only applies between the composite ref and its > promoted component ref within the same composite". I read the > following part of the assembly spec twice: > > 862 • nonOverridable : boolean (0..1) - a boolean value, "false" by > default, which indicates whether this > 863 component reference can have its targets overridden by a composite > reference which promotes the > 864 component reference. > > First time I read it I thought it was being very specific in talking > about "composite reference". i.e the composite reference declaration > in the same composite. That's when I started to worry. The second time > I read it, along with what Mike had said, I came to the conclusion > that it meant the composite reference in the wider sense, i.e. as > configured by the top level component. > > Does that make any sense? > > Simon > > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >
