Hi, Jim.
I'll commit a change to use simple names for now and we can deal with the
conflicting cases later.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Bug in deriving the service name from a java interface?
On Feb 9, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Scott Kurz wrote:
Hi,
I was just looking back on this thread and wondering where we ended up.
Did the Java C&I spec and/or any IRC discussions add some clarity here?
It seems a shame to lose the simple syntax in the more common case to
support the strange case where the service name really needs pkg
qualification. It's probably too late to point this out but the spec
could
deal with this by saying that in this edge case the default service name
includes pkg qualification while in the more typical case the service
name
is calculated as the unqualified intf name.
I haven't forgot but we've been dealing with so many other spec issues,
including the API changes, that I figured we would deal with this in the
1.1 version of the specs. I think the solution you outlined is good (i.e.
default to the simple name when possible) and in the case where there is
more than one simple name, either use the fully qualified name or allow
an annotation to specify an alias.
I wonder if everyone is using single-service components and bypassing
this
issue...
No I think multiple services will be common enough we should support
something per the above. If you're interested in working on a patch, I'd
be happy to help if needed.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
