On Jan 10, 2007, at 7:32 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
Jim,
I don't follow you. What would you expect the service name to
look like?
I especially dont want to see us making the simple case of a
single unambiguous interface look more complex. Can you draw up a
sample or two of what you mean?
I don't think there any issue with that case as because there is
only one interface it can be omitted:
locateService(MyInterface.class, "MyComponent");
I was assuming there are two interfaces in the example.
The same rule also applies when wiring in SCDL as you know the
service contract on both sides:
<reference name="myRef">MyComponent</reference>
I'd also think this issue would apply to components using other
IDL's - for example, suppose the component implemented two WSDL
interfaces with the same local part but from different namespaces,
wouldn't you need to specify the full QName?
Yes, I think it is a general problem.
Jim
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
