"tfennelly" wrote : "tcunning" wrote : Do we need both the action name and the action instance name? Shouldn't we be able to get by with just one of these, since the instance name should be unique within the particular service? | | Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Surely the action name is all that's needed and that only needs to be unique on a per service basis, right? | So you're saying that you will never want to deploy multiple actions of the same type within the same chain? Seems like an artifical limitation, but maybe I'm missing something ;-)? As long as the instance name contains enough information to identify the type of the action, then I don't see a problem. What I was thinking in terms of: | <action type>:<action instance id> | was that the action type might be something meaningful like DebugAction, whereas the action id could be a UID. But all of this is syntactic sugar. As long as we can uniquely and meaningfully identify actions within a chain! anonymous wrote : | "tcunning" wrote : With the nickname approach is it possible to enforce uniqueness across nodes, or would the "nickname" only be unique within a particular node? | | Personally I think the nickname will drive people bats because they'll need to perform some form of translation/mapping. I'd think that the name people see should be all they need to have to take them directly to the service/action definition in question i.e. no translation required. Yes, I agree. That's what I meant earlier when I said that however we name/identify these things has got to be done so that the user can immediately see what's going on. We don't want any of "OK, so BARFOO is the nickname; let me pop up my editor and check the esb.xml and see what that relates to" ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4062570#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...