[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-611?page=all ]
ant elder updated TUSCANY-611:
--
Fix Version/s: Java-M2
Affects Version/s: Java-M2
RMI Binding
---
Key: TUSCANY-611
URL:
Hi,
- I will add it to the SCDL in the binding.rmi
- The exception seems to be related to the Axis2 Binding jar that gets
packed into the extension directory of a standalone distribution. I removed
it for now, and have things working all right.
- I have not included a testcase that exposes a
Hi Venkat,
A couple of quick comments:
- this is probably teaching you to suck eggs...but if you are going to send
in a patch for reformatting the code could you do that as a separate patch
with no other changes. If you mix reformatting and code changes in a single
patch it makes it real hard
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-611?page=all ]
Venkatakrishnan updated TUSCANY-611:
Attachment: Tuscany-RMI-Binding-Formatted-Aug-15-1.diff
Hi,
This is a patch that has the code formated as per the tuscany codestyle.
Thanks
-
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-611?page=all ]
Venkatakrishnan updated TUSCANY-611:
Attachment: Tuscany-RMI-Binding-Updated-Aug-15-2.diff
Tuscany-SCA-SPI-Aug-15.diff
Hi
Here is an update to the RMI Binding. This
On Aug 15, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Venkatakrishnan (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-611?page=all ]
Venkatakrishnan updated TUSCANY-611:
Attachment: Tuscany-RMI-Binding-Updated-Aug-15-2.diff
Hi Jim,
I found ServletHost under org.apache.tuscany.spi.host and thought it to be a
good place to add RMIHost.
I have added the interface RMIHost which is the interface the bindings will
use to register and look up RMI services. With some initial thoughts I also
put in a RMIHostAdmin
On Aug 13, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
- each registry is identified by a port on which it runs. I am
not sure
how hostname can be used for services. However, for references
host names
has a role to play. Right?
For services it would determine the address that the port
Hi Jim / Jeremy,
I have been able to go forward quite a bit.
- Which is the scdl into which I must add the RMIHost component. I added it
first to the system.scdl in SCA-API project. But that did not get picked up
by the loader. When I debugged I figured out that it was the system.scdl in
the
On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Hi Jim / Jeremy,
I have been able to go forward quite a bit.
Cool
- Which is the scdl into which I must add the RMIHost component. I
added it
first to the system.scdl in SCA-API project. But that did not get
picked up
by the loader.
Hi Jeremy / Jim,
Thanks for continuing to guide me on this :-)
- Jim, the concern you raised about the business interface not inheriting
from Remote and the need to do some sort of mediation has been a primary
concern to me since M1. I have been able to get that working now. Now
there is no
On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Thanks Ant and Jim.
Ant, I shall certainly work on the formatting and a couple of other
issues
and posted an updated patch asap.
Jim, you point was something that I did vacillate about. I was
wondering if
the registry should be
On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Thanks Ant and Jim.
Ant, I shall certainly work on the formatting and a couple of other
issues
and posted an updated patch asap.
Jim, you point was something that I did vacillate about. I was
wondering if
the registry should be
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
My imagination of the Registry is that it is lightweight and it
should be ok
to host several instances of it on a host, ofcourse each on a
different
port. Hence we might actually allow the
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
My imagination of the Registry is that it is lightweight and it
should be ok
to host several instances of it on a host, ofcourse each on a
On Aug 11, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
My imagination of the Registry is that it is lightweight and it
should be ok
to host
On Aug 11, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
My imagination of the Registry is that
On Aug 11, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
Forgot about the host. If we want to have one component per
registry, what happens when two services register at the same
host/port combination?
If two registries register, the second should fail (as it won't be
able to get the socket
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-611?page=all ]
Venkatakrishnan updated TUSCANY-611:
Attachment: Tuscany-RMI-Binding-Aug-10-Updated.diff
Hi... there is one addition that has been missed out in the prev. patch. My
sincere apologies
Hi Venkat, I've committed this patch now. Had some problems getting the
patch to apply cleanly so had to fiddle about a bit, could you check it
looks ok to you? The code needs formatting so maybe you could send in
another patch doing that? I've also not added the service and reference
samples to
Thanks Venkat. Just a quick question: do you think it is best to have
one Registry per service or could we have one Registry per runtime
instance and have services register with that? If you think the
latter may be something that works better, one thing that could be
done is to create a
21 matches
Mail list logo
