WSDL service names are duplicated when user does not provide WSDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: TUSCANY-4036
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-4036
             Project: Tuscany
          Issue Type: Bug
    Affects Versions: Java-SCA-2.0
            Reporter: Greg Dritschler
            Priority: Minor
         Attachments: TUSCANY-4036.patch

Scenario:  An SCA composite has multiple components which
 * use binding.ws
 * do not provide a WSDL document via the wsdlElement attribute
 * implement the same Java interface

In this case, for each web service binding, WSDLServiceGenerator takes the WSDL 
Definition that is generated by Interface2WSDLGenerator and adds a WSDL service 
and port to it.   In this scenario where multiple components implement the same 
interface, the resulting WSDL services have the same definition namespace 
(which is derived from the Java package name) and the same local name (which is 
derived from the Java class name).  This may make it difficult for the runtime 
to tailor the WSDL to support component-specific policy.

This problem does not exist when the user does provide WSDL (either via 
wsdlElement or interface.wsdl).  In that case WSDLServiceGenerator creates a 
new WSDL Definition with a modified namespace that includes the component name. 
 This is possible because the generated WSDL can import the user's WSDL 
document.  It is more difficult to do this in the problem scenario because 
WSDLServiceGenerator is already working with a generated document that has no 
physical location for the import to refer to.

An alternate solution is for WSDLServiceGenerator to include the component name 
in the WSDL service name.

 

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Reply via email to