Ah yes, that would work :) Though we'll still need to look into the modules scenario.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of iilsley Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: HotFix 2 for 2.01 and modules and uri's . ( WORKAROUND ? ) I seem to have found a workaround .. setting the rootURL of the webservice to an empty string ( this.ws.rootURL = "" ) seems to work now ( phew ..:) ) . Again thanks for looking into this .. --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Peter Farland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll optimistically log this as something to be investigated for LCDS > 2.5 Updater 1 where there is a chance we can improve this... the > difference is that in the older code base, if the proxy was not being > used, relative URLs made their way to the raw flash.net.URLRequest which > means native player code resolved the relative URL for us... perhaps > such a class is always managed by the top level movie and this always > resolves against the top level SWF url? I'll have to consider whether we > can take advantage of this top-level behavior somehow as the Flex > application classes are in their own contexts and would resolve to the > individual URLs used to load each module. > > Pete > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of iilsley > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:13 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: HotFix 2 for 2.01 and modules and uri's . > > > > > I'm using 'relative' paths because I dont necessarily > know the 'root' url . > The application could be installed under any > 'path' . > > There should be an option for Modules as to what its URL > to use , its or the application its being loaded into . > > This is a definate change of behavior in HotFix2 and one that IMHO is > not for the better :) .. > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > , "Peter Farland" <pfarland@> wrote: > > > > The new implementation in Hotfix 2 now handles WSDL imports and > includes > > and XSD imports and needs to be able to resolve relative > > imports/includes to the parent document's location, so the WSDLLoader > > has to resolve relative urls. By default this is based on what the > > SystemManager's loaderInfo.url has when the application is > > initialized... which, while I'm not familiar with how this loaderInfo > > resolves under modules but would guess it is relative to that module's > > URL. You can override the default by setting the rootURL property on > > your WebService. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > ] On > > Behalf Of iilsley > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:41 PM > > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: [flexcoders] HotFix 2 for 2.01 and modules and uri's . > > > > > > > > > > I have some modules that use local webservices . > > The URL's for the webservices are defined as 'relative' paths. > > > > eg: > > > > this.ws = new mx.rpc.soap.WebService(); > > this.ws.wsdl = "services/myservice/myservice.wsdl"; > > this.ws.endpointURI = "services/myservice/myService.php"; > > > > After installing the hotfix 2 , they have stopped working .. :( . > > > > The reason , I believe , is the path that is being used .. > > It now seems that the path is the path where the module was loaded > > from and not the path the 'parent' was loaded from. > > > > prior to hotfix I see the following in my apache log.. > > > > GET /app/services/myservice/myservice.wsdl 200 - > > > > after hotfix I see > > > > GET /app/modules/services/myservice/myservice.wsdl 404 - > > > > Is this a bug ? > > >
