Hi, Thanks... I'll change to name.binding.composite as opposed to name.composite.binding...
Cheers, Dan On 28/02/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Thanks. I like this sort of naming and really helps in identifying scdls better. - Venkat On 2/27/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > Dan Murphy wrote: > > Hi Sebastien, > > > > On the move SCDL files... where were you planning to move them to > > (META-INF/scdl, or up futher into the main/resources part of the > > source tree > > ?) > > Just asking so I can keep in sync with you and do the same for my > > intended > > databinding tests (incidently I also adoped the > > composite-name.composite for > > default binding and composite-name.composite.ws for the same composite > > with > > a web service binding... does this still make sense, or are you also > > changing the iTest framework so I could no longer use this approach ?) > > > > Cheers, > > Dan > > > > src/main/resources/<composite-name>.composite > > The runtime should be able to work with any file name, but I recommend > to use a single .composite extension to avoid confusion and allow people > who are using IDEs to associate .composite files with the correct XML > editor and validate them with the SCDL XML schema. > > I also recommend to use different composite names for different > composites, to avoid collisions later when you include these composites > in an SCA domain. > > Finally, I am not making changes to the iTest framework/plugin. I am not > using it as I've not found it useful for what I had to do. > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >