Sure...but the contribution of bit of code or even a complete testcase
highlighting this would still be of use...and a patch to get the desired
behaviour would be even more help :)

   ...ant

On 8/3/07, Scott Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll jump in though I might be missing some context... ...
>
> I wonder if Shaoguang is describing the fact that the component service
> name must match the implementation service name when you are configuring the
> component via SCDL (rather than making a statement about the composite
> service name).
>
> This issue is particularly noticable when there is only one service in a
> component since in most places SCA lets you be ignorant of the service name
> of a single-service-component (e.g. when making a wire target).
>
> A "guiding exception" would be a nice addition.......
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On 8/3/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > According to line 1498 on page 34 of the Assembly spec[1] it doesn't
> > sound
> > like thats correct:
> >
> > 1498 • name (required) – the name of the service, the name MUST BE
> > unique
> > across all the
> > 1499 composite services in the composite. The name of the composite
> > service
> > can be different
> > 1500 from the name of the promoted component service.
> >
> > So the behaviour you're seeing sounds like a bug. Could you raise a
> > JIRA,
> > and if possible attach some code to demonstrate the problem?
> >
> >    ...ant
> >
> > [1] http://www.oasis-opencsa.org/sca-assembly
> >
> > On 8/3/07, shaoguang geng <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > Just now, I found that the <service name="[name]">, name here must
> > equal
> > > to the java interface's name, as well the service's name of WSDL,
> > other
> > > wise, we just see NullPointerException.
> > >
> > > I would suggest generate a guiding Exception, to tell the developer
> > this
> > > "rule" of defining a service.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see
> > what's
> > > on, when.
> >
>
>

Reply via email to