Thanks, Alex. Supposing we really do want modules with new endpoints and not sub-applications, is it possible to emulate services-config.xml functionality by programmatically requesting a services-config.xml-like per-module config file and subclassing RemoteObject to understand the extra channels and endpoints defined there? Any pointers if that's a viable solution?
-Maciek -----Original Message----- From: Alex Harui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [flexcoders] modules and services-config.xml Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:42:47 -0700 Modules imply a certain level of sharing of class definitions and what not and probably don’t allow you to not share what AMF needs. You might want to use a Marshall Plan configuration instead. From:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maciek Sakrejda Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:43 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] modules and services-config.xml Anyone? I can't be the first one to hit this limitation, can I? -----Original Message----- From: Maciek Sakrejda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com To: flexcoders <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [flexcoders] modules and services-config.xml Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:57:05 -0700 I asked this on Saturday, but it was as a clarification to another question and got no response, so I thought I'd ask again. What's the best way to deal with modules that define their own set of AMF endpoints (or even channels)? I need a single services-config.xml file for the entire war file (I'm deploying as a Java war), right? Is there an easy way to set up AMF so that others can add modules to the war without having to recompile the main application against a new services-config.xml? Is there any way to do that? Modules seem really cool, but it would be nice if they were self-contained with respect to this... -- Maciek Sakrejda Truviso, Inc. http://www.truviso.com
