On 10/1/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/1/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > Interesting question here about which piece of configuration wins. I guess > > that if you have gone to the trouble to specify the WSDL over and above > > the > > intent the WSDL should win. > > > I agree wsdl should win, that would be consistent with the other > binding.wsfunction, for example. if wsdlElement points to a wsdl port > then that port > location wins over the binding.ws uri attribute location. Actually, I'd go > further and say it should be flagged as an error if you specify requires=" > transport.jms" and point at a wsdl binding which uses an http transport.
+1, There are three ways to specify transport information now, uri, wsdl, intent/policy. So three ways to get it wrong or at least create inconsistency. Pointing out such problems must be a good thing. At the moment the various inputs are resolved to the final uri (computeActualUri) and are stored in the wsBinding During this process we should trap whether the inputs are inconsistent I imagine this is going to be a general problem with SCA artifacts where they can be configured through the SCDL or through intents/policies. ...ant >
