You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by "Jean-Sebastien Delfino (JIRA)" <tu...@ws.apache.org> on 2007/09/13 10:35:34 UTC

[jira] Updated: (TUSCANY-1516) Possible promotion problem with Tuscany

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1516?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Jean-Sebastien Delfino updated TUSCANY-1516:
--------------------------------------------

    Fix Version/s:     (was: Java-SCA-1.0)
                   Java-SCA-Next

Moving to SCA-Next as these JIRAs are not likely to be fixed by 1.0.

> Possible promotion problem with Tuscany
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TUSCANY-1516
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1516
>             Project: Tuscany
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Java SCA Core Runtime
>         Environment: All
>            Reporter: Hasan Muhammad
>             Fix For: Java-SCA-Next
>
>         Attachments: default.composite, MyServiceImpl.java, mySimpleService.composite, MyTotalService.java, MyTotalServiceImpl.java, MyTotalServiceTest.java
>
>
> I am experiencing a testcase failure in case of the scenario where a composite file is embedded in another and from the embedded composite we promote a service.  I have attached composite files. 
> In the testcases, if we locate a service as such and obtain the location property, the value is correct and is "Durham"
> 	myServiceAnother = context.locateService(MyService.class, "MySimpleServiceInRecursiveAnother/MyServiceNew1");
>                 assertEquals("Durham",myServiceAnother.getLocation());
> But if we locate another service from the parent composite directly as such and obtain the location property, the value is incorrect and is again "Durham". 
> 	myTotalServiceNew= context.locateService(MyTotalService.class, "MyTotalServiceNewComponent");
> 	assertEquals("Raleigh",myTotalServiceNew.getLocation());
> Shouldnt it be "Raleigh" in the second case since we are accessing the component/service defined in the parent component and not the promoted one from the embedded composite? I dont know where to look but is this a potential wiring problem?
> I will be attaching the composite files and test case.

-- 
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