On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Anyhow if this code is doing what I think it's doing then maybe we should
move it to be a little earlier in the process and more general than the
sca
binding. We could take the
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Anyhow if this code is doing what I think it's doing then maybe we should
move it to be a little earlier in the process and more general than
the sca
binding. We could take the checking code you have here and put it a
little
higher up where the reference targets
Simon Laws wrote:
Was just looking at the checkin. Thanks for making the fix. Now we don't
generate invalid composite files when they get written out.
Re. the second part dealing with URIs. It looks to me like this is picking
up the case where the URI has been specified as the name of the
Simon Laws wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Laws wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Simon's emphases on
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Laws wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Simon's emphases on the
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Simon's emphases on the point of view. I understand
Tuscany may prefer one solution over the other. However from
extensibility
Simon Laws wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Simon's emphases on the point of view. I understand
Tuscany may prefer one solution over the other. However from
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Simon's emphases on the point of view. I understand
Tuscany may prefer one solution over the other. However from
extensibility perspective, there need some extension points to enable
Tuscany adapters to overwrite
Comments inline.
Simon Laws wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Lou Amodeo wrote:
This is a request to propogate the value of a references target=
attribute
as a first class attribute on its associated bindings model object.
This request is
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments inline.
Simon Laws wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Lou Amodeo wrote:
This is a request to propogate the value of a references
I agree with Simon's emphases on the point of view. I understand
Tuscany may prefer one solution over the other. However from
extensibility perspective, there need some extension points to enable
Tuscany adapters to overwrite the default behavior. I think the thread
discussion on reference target
On Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Lou Amodeo wrote:
This is a request to propogate the value of a references target=
attribute
as a first class attribute on its associated bindings model object.
This request is based on a requirement to
Lou Amodeo wrote:
This is a request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute
as a first class attribute on its associated bindings model object.
This request is based on a requirement to provide support to implement a
late-endpoint resolution capability for service references
Some more comments inline
Lets see if I can articulate this a little better. My thinking is that
taget= represents a binding independent way to resolve an endpoint. It
doesnt necessarily specify the contents of the effective URI that is
used to address an endpoint.
+1
In the
One question inline.
Simon
Simon Laws wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 8:06 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(cut)
The value from the reference target is currently set to the target when
the reference is matched to a target service.
I don't quite follow the above. Are you saying that
snip...
The value from the reference target is currently set to the target when
the reference is matched to a target service.
I don't quite follow the above. Are you saying that the service URI
is copied into the reference binding URI at the matching stage? Is this
the fully resolved
Thanks for all the responses and good discussion.
Lets see if I can articulate this a little better. My thinking is that
taget= represents a binding independent way to resolve an endpoint. It
doesnt necessarily specify the contents of the effective URI that is
used to address an endpoint. In
Simon Laws wrote:
On Jan 21, 2008 6:55 PM, Lou Amodeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute
as a first class attribute on its associated bindings model object.
This request is based on a requirement to provide support to
By deferring the endpoint resolution until the point of invocation it
reduces the window of opportunity for the reference to lookup the endpoint
prior to the service being started. It also always services to change
endpoints (reregister) without the need for recycle the client.
Getting back to
See inline.
Simon
Lou Amodeo wrote:
By deferring the endpoint resolution until the point of invocation it
reduces the window of opportunity for the reference to lookup the endpoint
prior to the service being started. It also always services to change
endpoints (reregister) without the need
On Jan 30, 2008 8:06 PM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See inline.
Simon
Lou Amodeo wrote:
By deferring the endpoint resolution until the point of invocation it
reduces the window of opportunity for the reference to lookup the
endpoint
prior to the service being started. It
On Jan 21, 2008 6:55 PM, Lou Amodeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute
as a first class attribute on its associated bindings model object.
This request is based on a requirement to provide support to implement a
late-endpoint
22 matches
Mail list logo
