On Jan 4, 2008 3:02 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Comments inline. > > Simon > > ant elder wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2007 5:22 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > (cut) > >> > >>I thought that the scenarios I described earlier helped describe the > >>problem, which boils down to: > >>domain != node > >>so domain URI != node URI > >>trying to make them equal is just wrong, and will break as soon as > >>there's 2 nodes in a domain. > >> > > > > > > Ok but in the non-distributed case with just a single standalone node > then > > domain is the same as node isn't it, so domain uri could be the same as > node > > uri? > > > Yes, I think it would be the same in this case. But this case is not > very "interesting" in the broader scheme of things. And to make special > use of the domain URI for this case only seems wrong to me. >
Its the way just about all the users posting to the user list seem to be using Tuscany and its the way about 99% of the Tuscany samples and tests run! That makes it at least a little bit interesting doesn't it ;-) Also, if we do whats below then its not really making a special case for this standalone case. > > The specs don't mention nodes, maybe what we need is to do 1.7.2 for > nodes > > and have a node base URI, i think that at least would help with all the > WS > > endpoint problems we keep getting. > > > This seems a more useful path to follow. I'd like to understand in more > detail what you have in mind. Would services (potentially) be exposed on > two different endpoints (aliases), one with a node URI and another with a > domain URI? > Have to admit I'm still struggling to understand how the domain and multiple nodes is really supposed to be working so not sure i can answer that yet. Don't we have that issue today whether or not nodes have an explicit base uri? ...ant
