You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by "Simon Laws (JIRA)" <tu...@ws.apache.org> on 2008/03/07 08:42:58 UTC

[jira] Assigned: (TUSCANY-2010) Default binding URI for service from Composite impl component is incorrect

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2010?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Simon Laws reassigned TUSCANY-2010:
-----------------------------------

    Assignee: Simon Laws  (was: Simon Nash)

> Default binding URI for service from Composite impl component is incorrect
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TUSCANY-2010
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2010
>             Project: Tuscany
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Java SCA Assembly Model
>    Affects Versions: Java-SCA-1.0.1
>            Reporter: Scott Kurz
>            Assignee: Simon Laws
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: Java-SCA-Next
>
>
> Consider the following two SCDL files, a top-level SCDL with a component implemented in a 2nd SCDL file:
> <!-- top-level SCDL excerpt -->
>    <component name="MultiplyComponent">
>       <implementation.composite name="multiply:MultiplyComposite"/>
>     </component>
> <!-- composite impl SCDL excerpt -->
> <composite xmlns="http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"     name="MultiplyComposite">
>     <service name="MultiplyService" promote="InnerMultiplyComponent/MultiplyService">
>       <interface.java ..../>
>     </service>
>     <component name="InnerMultiplyComponent">
>       <implementation.java... />
>     </component>
> </composite>
> It seems that, based on the current CompositeConfigurationBuilderImpl.java code in the assembly module, I am going to end up with an effective default binding URI of "MultiplyComponent/MultiplyComponent"  instead of simply the correct "MultiplyComponent".
> It seems like one fix is to change this segment:
>             // around line 109
>             Implementation implementation = component.getImplementation();
>             if (implementation instanceof Composite) {
>                 // Process nested composite
>                 //      configureComponents((Composite)implementation,  componentURI);         //PROBLEM
>                configureComponents((Composite)implementation,  null);                                       //SEEMS TO WORK
>             }
> However, I'm not sure if I'm giving this the thought this deserves.   For example I see Sebastien made a change in r592270 and I'm not sure why.    
> Maybe there's a better solution.    Could we possibly want to, in some cases, do something like:
> URI.create(String).relativize(URI.create(String))      
> in one or more case where we now do:
> URI.create(String).resolve(String)
> ?
> Just throwing that out there....

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org