[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Scott Kurz reassigned TUSCANY-3942:
-----------------------------------
Assignee: Scott Kurz
> Should <reference target="XXX> with empty child <binding.sca> element be
> allowed?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TUSCANY-3942
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3942
> Project: Tuscany
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Java SCA Assembly Model
> Affects Versions: Java-SCA-2.x
> Reporter: Scott Kurz
> Assignee: Scott Kurz
> Priority: Minor
>
> Should this be allowed? (I should have phrased this as "uri"-less
> <binding.sca> rather than "empty")
>
> <reference target="targetService>
> <binding.sca/>
> </reference>
> I see this is specifically allowed in
> EndpointReferenceBuilderImpl.bindingsIdentifyTargets(), so some thought went
> into this (looks like Raymond wrote this):
> if ((binding instanceof SCABinding) && (binding.getURI() == null))
> continue;
> I can understand the thought process here, e.g. the context around ASM50026
> involves avoiding ambiguity in resolving references, and since an empty,
> uri-less <binding.sca> doesn't resolve the reference at all.. it doesn't
> conflict with the target.
> However, the language in ASM50026 is plain and simple and seems to disallow
> this, and doesn't make a special case for <binding.sca> without a @uri.
> One problem with tolerating this syntax, (as we do today), is that, in
> general, when using @target you don't get to select which binding to use,
> from the reference side. However I could see someone thinking that adding
> the <binding.sca> child elem to the reference with @target value would imply
> that the binding.sca should be used to do the invocation. (ASM50012 implies
> this). So it's unclear if this should have this behavior making the app
> implementation-dependent.
> From a purely Tuscany-only viewpoint I can even see the value of tolerating
> this... however it's such a simple case syntax-wise, and the spec is clearly
> trying to specify the correct vs. incorrect behavior... so I do think we
> should try to follow the letter of the spec in this instance.
> I tried to find some earlier discussion here, this is all I found which
> didn't seem to help much (except to make me wonder if there is some other use
> case, maybe involving callbacks, complicating this.. but I can't think of it):
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3013
> Thoughts?
> Thanks, Scott
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
