Hello Simon, Sorry for the delay, as I was out on vacation all last week.
>> Regarding 2281, I assume that also eliminates the need for workers to be >> a reference collection, and can go back to being just one reference? >Not sure I understand this comment. I'm probably missing something in the >way that you have your scenario set up. Sorry, what I meant was: will the change revert the reference collection: @Reference protected List<Worker> workers; back to: @Reference protected Worker worker; Based on your response, it will not. The reason I was asking was in reference to my other issue of having to add the service name to all the interface methods. > If you are passing the names about in method calls it suggests that > components outside of the scheduler need to know that the workers exist. > Are you vending out work references in some way? Basically, yes. The Scheduler app is existing non-component code, and we are currently (due to time constraints) only converting the IPC interface to Tuscany. So the access I have to the scheduler component within the full Scheduler app is the getService() from the SCAClient. Unfortunately, it again seems that I am currently forcing constrained usage of Tuscany to a web service interface framework, instead of an overall architecture. But this is getting our foot in the door. I think the main issue is that I have been thinking about the scheduler component as only part of the Scheduler app, and not that the Scheduler app is actually contained within the scheduler component. Time for some more thinking... > There is a JIRA for this (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY- > 2662). It looks like it's been fixed in the 1.x branch and the 1.3.3. > branch. Great, thanks. Any update as to the release of the next version? Regards, Bob
