Ant, I was trying to add the link to this document from the website and was not sure where you intended to sit? It seems like user doc is the right place for it?
On 6/4/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Ant, I was trying to avoid the uri scheme and thought this to be a sure way to keep out errors - getting explicit inputs for each. But then, this just about manages only the defaults for host and port. So, I am open to implementing your suggestion and understand it could be more consistent with the other bindings. Thanks - Venkat On 6/4/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I started documenting the RMI binding SCDL at > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/SCA+Java+binding.rmi I > wondered if it could use a URI format instead of or as well as the > separate > host, port, and servicename attributes? There may be some reason its > doesn't, has it ever been considered? > > Along the lines of whats described at > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/jndi/jndi-rmi.html#RMI, so: > > <binding.rmi uri="rmi://localhost:1099/myservice"/> > > and all those could have defaults so you could just have <binding.rmi/> on > a > service and it would make it available using the component and service > name > as described in 1.7.2 of the assembly spec. > > ...ant >
