Raymond, A couple of comments below..
My preference would be to check in the changes I've made that make the itest (wsdl-multiple) that I've just checked in at least work. I can then close JIRA-2043 that relates to a very specific problem and raise a new one that discusses the general situation. We then have some extra testing in the build to keep us honest when it comes to fixing the more general case. Sound OK? Regards Simon On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe the best approach is keep the physical artifacts in the list as-is > without aggregation. +1 > And we change the artifact resolving so that it only > happens at lower levels such as WSDL portType, binding, service or XSD > element, type. This way we can find the accurate artifact. > So you mean that the aggregation is no longer required. Sounds good to me. I.e. Currently we aggregate the WSDL/XSD at resolution time and then have extra logic at run time to unpick this aggregation It would seem better to Pick the precise artifact that is required at resolution time and do away with the runtime requirement to analyze aggregations > > The current Tuscany code tries to resolve WSDLDefinition/XSDefinition > first. > It seems to be causing ambiguity when there are multiple WSDLs/XSDs under > the same namespace. > > Here are some examples of references to WSDL/XSD elements from SCA. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --> WSDL portType > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --> WSDL portType, service, binding, etc. > property --> XSD element or type > > In the above, we do have the information about what type of artifacts > we're > trying to resolve. Do any of you see a case that we can only resolve at > WSDL > Definition or XML Schema level? > > Thanks, > Raymond >
