Now that you've pointed it out if what i'm looking for is just to be able to have things default it makes no difference if it uses a uri or separate attributes for the parameters, either way they can all still have defaults. How about it works with either way, which is similar to what the JMS binding does. If everyone is fine with that i'll change it once the threads about the binding uri have reached a conclusion.
...ant On 6/4/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Ant, I was trying to avoid the uri scheme and thought this to be a sure way to keep out errors - getting explicit inputs for each. But then, this just about manages only the defaults for host and port. So, I am open to implementing your suggestion and understand it could be more consistent with the other bindings. Thanks - Venkat On 6/4/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I started documenting the RMI binding SCDL at > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/SCA+Java+binding.rmi I > wondered if it could use a URI format instead of or as well as the > separate > host, port, and servicename attributes? There may be some reason its > doesn't, has it ever been considered? > > Along the lines of whats described at > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/jndi/jndi-rmi.html#RMI, so: > > <binding.rmi uri="rmi://localhost:1099/myservice"/> > > and all those could have defaults so you could just have <binding.rmi/> on > a > service and it would make it available using the component and service > name > as described in 1.7.2 of the assembly spec. > > ...ant >
