AM
Subject: Re: SCA Binding and Disitribution was: Distributed Composites
> [snip]
> Simon Laws wrote:
>> Ok, I've taken the next step here and have a distributed runtime
example
>> running in my sandbox. A sample calculator application [1] showing the
>> disitribute
No, it was operator error. For some reason I didn't snip out the bit I was
replying to. Apologies
Simon
Simon Laws wrote:
Looking back at this I think you are right that the specs that that a
Domain
will have a base URI per scheme. We may have been a bit over zelous
with the
base URIs in there association with bindings.
I'm just wondering why we assumed it was defined on a binding basis. I
imagi
Looking back at this I think you are right that the specs that that a Domain
will have a base URI per scheme. We may have been a bit over zelous with the
base URIs in there association with bindings.
I'm just wondering why we assumed it was defined on a binding basis. I
imagine separate base uris
On 6/7/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting. Taking a step back I think we should agree what we are trying
to represent in a model of the topology before we decide where the
information comes from and the exact syntax of the configuration files. So
from the previous two suggest
Interesting. Taking a step back I think we should agree what we are trying
to represent in a model of the topology before we decide where the
information comes from and the exact syntax of the configuration files. So
from the previous two suggestions...
When a runtime is started up we need the r
ost:8085/jsonxyz";>
http://$host:1234/>
...
- Original Message -
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: SCA Binding and Disitribution was: Distributed Compo
[snip]
Simon Laws wrote:
Ok, I've taken the next step here and have a distributed runtime example
running in my sandbox. A sample calculator application [1] showing the
disitributed runtime in action and a module containing the changes I
had to
make to the runtime to get this to work [2]. The c
Ok, I've taken the next step here and have a distributed runtime example
running in my sandbox. A sample calculator application [1] showing the
disitributed runtime in action and a module containing the changes I had to
make to the runtime to get this to work [2]. The changes are actually
trivial
On 4/30/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/24/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Following on from the release content thread [1] I'd like to kick off a
> discussion on how we resurrect support for a distributed runtime. We had
> this feature before the core modularizati
On 4/24/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Following on from the release content thread [1] I'd like to kick off a
discussion on how we resurrect support for a distributed runtime. We had
this feature before the core modularization and I think it would be good to
bring it back again. For
Following on from the release content thread [1] I'd like to kick off a
discussion on how we resurrect support for a distributed runtime. We had
this feature before the core modularization and I think it would be good to
bring it back again. For me this is about working out how the tuscany
runtime
12 matches
Mail list logo
