David Blevins wrote:
>
> Unless there's a spec requirement
> to use the simple name for the port-component-name, seems a better
> default would be the ejb-name which would seem to solve this issue.
>
> What do you think?
>
Yep, fully agrree !
It seems to me a better default.
As I'm working on a better WS-Security integration, I can open a JIRA and
submit a patch if you agree.
Jean-Louis
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/How-to-define-more-than-one-port-component-for-one-endpoint-interface-implementation-tp22678764p22696908.html
Sent from the OpenEJB User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
