On Nov 20, 2007 6:47 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Simon Laws wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 2007 3:59 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Are you sure that this is the right semantics? Can you help me
> >> understand why we need to change the naming of the service if there's a
> >> a callback?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> Author: slaws
> >>> Date: Tue Nov 20 06:35:45 2007
> >>> New Revision: 596692
> >>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=596692&view=rev
> >>> Log:
> >>> TUSCANY-1914
> >>> Construct URLs as ComponentName/ServiceName if callbacks have been
> added
> >> causing the number of services to be greater than 1
> >>> Modified:
> >>>
> >>
> incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/assembly/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/assembly/builder/impl/CompositeConfigurationBuilderImpl.java
> >>> Modified:
> >>
> incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/assembly/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/assembly/builder/impl/CompositeConfigurationBuilderImpl.java
> >>> URL:
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/assembly/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/assembly/builder/impl/CompositeConfigurationBuilderImpl.java?rev=596692&r1=596691&r2=596692&view=diff
> >>
> ==============================================================================
> >>> ---
> >>
> incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/assembly/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/assembly/builder/impl/CompositeConfigurationBuilderImpl.java
> >> (original)
> >>> +++
> >>
> incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/assembly/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/assembly/builder/impl/CompositeConfigurationBuilderImpl.java
> >> Tue Nov 20 06:35:45 2007
> >>> @@ -280,7 +280,8 @@
> >>>
> >>>                      String bindingURI;
> >>>                      if (binding.getURI() == null) {
> >>> -                        if (componentServices.size() > 1) {
> >>> +                        //if (componentServices.size() > 1) {
> >>> +                        if (component.getServices().size() > 1) {
> >>>                              // Binding URI defaults to component URI
> /
> >> binding name
> >>>                              bindingURI = String.valueOf(
> binding.getName
> >> ());
> >>>                              bindingURI = URI.create(component.getURI
> ()
> >> + '/').resolve(bindingURI).toString();
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Sebastien
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here.
> >
> > When a callback is encountered on a component reference a new callback
> > service is now created to represent the endpoint of the callback
> > [createCallbackService(Component, ComponentReference) in the
> > CompositeConfigurationBuilder].
> >
> > I believe the intention is to treat these new services in the same way
> as
> > any other service that the component may be providing.
>
> There's a difference, they cannot be wired to using <reference
> target="...">.
>
> I think it would be worth checking the intention with the spec group.
>
> Perhaps we should also check that the spec's intention is to continue to
> have this one service vs multiple services distinction. I can't seem to
> find it now on the mailing lists but I think I remember a discussion
> around that and people suggesting to remove that distinction.
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Yes - I remember that too. I'll raise a question with Mike Edwards or
someone on the spec group and see if we can get some resolution to this.
Resolving the second question makes the first a moot point.

Regards

Simon

Reply via email to