Topic
  • 4 replies
  • Latest Post - ‏2011-08-26T23:37:23Z by izhd
izhd
izhd
27 Posts

Pinned topic implementation.widget, binding.http & remote URI

‏2011-08-18T21:50:46Z |
Currently we have SCA component that provides services over http binding, and we have another co-allocated Web application with SCA component that has implementation.widget that uses service of first component.
Bindings for references are specified as following :

<binding.http uri="/services/DocumentService">
<wireFromat.jsonrpc/>
</binding>

We would like to host UI Web application and services on separate WAS clusters.
Is it possible to specify full URL to services? if not, what would be recommended solution for this problem?

Regards,
Igor
Updated on 2011-08-26T23:37:23Z at 2011-08-26T23:37:23Z by izhd
  • SystemAdmin
    SystemAdmin
    126 Posts

    Re: implementation.widget, binding.http &#38; remote URI

    ‏2011-08-18T23:06:57Z  
    Hi Igor.

    I'm not a Widget expert, but looking in the web I found out that it is possible. Take a look at these links:
    http://tuscany.apache.org/sca-java-bindinghttp.html
    http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wasinfo/v7r0/topic/com.ibm.websphere.soafep.multiplatform.doc/info/ae/ae/tsca_jsonrpc_binding_use.html
    http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wasinfo/v7r0/topic/com.ibm.websphere.soafep.multiplatform.doc/info/ae/ae/tsca_implementation_widget.html
    http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wasinfo/v7r0/topic/com.ibm.websphere.soafep.multiplatform.doc/info/ae/ae/tsca_implementation_widget_jsonrpc.html

    "Software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard"
    - Grady Booch
  • SystemAdmin
    SystemAdmin
    126 Posts

    Re: implementation.widget, binding.http &#38; remote URI

    ‏2011-08-18T23:08:19Z  
    I missed one thing in my previous post.

    In the IBM WAS Infocenter, it doesn't show or say it is possible, but it is not listed as a know limitation, which may be good :-)

    "Software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard"
    - Grady Booch
  • SystemAdmin
    SystemAdmin
    126 Posts

    Re: implementation.widget, binding.http &#38; remote URI

    ‏2011-08-26T19:19:01Z  
    I missed one thing in my previous post.

    In the IBM WAS Infocenter, it doesn't show or say it is possible, but it is not listed as a know limitation, which may be good :-)

    "Software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard"
    - Grady Booch
    Hi,

    Just realizing we'd never completely answered this question.

    I think the last WAS InfoCenter article Victor linked to does address this, but the answer seems to be "no", unfortunately.

    It says:

    When using the Widget implementation, HTTP binding references must be deployed on the same server or cluster as the HTTP binding services that they reference. This limitation is a result of browser limitations on cross-domain JavaScript invocation. If your application defines the reference and service in separate servers or clusters, use a proxy server so that the Widget implementation resource that contains the reference and the HTTP binding service are both accessed using the same HTTP domain.

    I don't really have any other suggestions, so hopefully that can work for you.

    Scott
  • izhd
    izhd
    27 Posts

    Re: implementation.widget, binding.http &#38; remote URI

    ‏2011-08-26T23:37:23Z  
    Hi,

    Just realizing we'd never completely answered this question.

    I think the last WAS InfoCenter article Victor linked to does address this, but the answer seems to be "no", unfortunately.

    It says:

    When using the Widget implementation, HTTP binding references must be deployed on the same server or cluster as the HTTP binding services that they reference. This limitation is a result of browser limitations on cross-domain JavaScript invocation. If your application defines the reference and service in separate servers or clusters, use a proxy server so that the Widget implementation resource that contains the reference and the HTTP binding service are both accessed using the same HTTP domain.

    I don't really have any other suggestions, so hopefully that can work for you.

    Scott
    Thanks, that's what I thought
    We'll try to deploy in one cluster to avoid hassle with Ajax proxy