binding.sca bindingType in definitions.xml not used if SCA binding is created 
during build phase
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: TUSCANY-2171
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2171
             Project: Tuscany
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: Java SCA Core Runtime
    Affects Versions: Java-SCA-1.0.1
            Reporter: Greg Dritschler


I have a definitions.xml file which defines a bindingType for binding.sca.
  <bindingType type="sca:binding.sca"  mayProvide="propagatesTransaction"/>

I have a composite which uses an intent on a reference.
  <reference name="daService" target="DataAccessComponent" 
requires="propagatesTransaction"/>

The reference does not have a <binding.sca> element.  In this case the binding 
model object is created by CompositeConfigurationBuilderImpl.createSCABinding() 
which is shown below.

    private SCABinding createSCABinding() {
        SCABinding scaBinding = scaBindingFactory.createSCABinding();
        IntentAttachPointType bindingType = 
intentAttachPointTypeFactory.createBindingType();
        bindingType.setName(BINDING_SCA_QNAME);
        bindingType.setUnresolved(true);
        ((PolicySetAttachPoint)scaBinding).setType(bindingType);
        return scaBinding;
    }

This method creates an IntentAttachPointType which is unresolved.  There is no 
code to resolve the IntentAttachPointType to the "real" one.  As a result the 
PolicyComputer uses the unresolved IntentAttachPointType model and does not 
realize that binding.sca provides the intent needed by the reference.

Discussed on tuscany-dev here:  
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28903.html

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to