On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
<snip>
> I'm particularly interested in those who put the provider framwork in
> place see the addition of binding configuration see this as an extension of
> the binding providers or see this as a new set of providers?
>
>
This is looking like a new type of extension to me, people should be able to
contribute new wireFormatters and have them made available for use within
the Tuscany runtime. Its also looking like this should be possible to do at
the application level.
So Tuscany would come with a bunch of wireFormat extensions just like it
already has a bunch of binding and implementation extensions. Something
somewhere would define what the default wireFormat extension is to use with
each binding when no <wireFormat> element is in the SCDL. So there would be
a self contained JMS wireformat extension which implements the defaults as
defined in section 5.2 in the JMS binding spec and you'd be able to do:
<reference ...>
<binding.jms>
<wireFormat.jms/>
</binding.jms>
</reference>
but that would be the default so the same as:
<reference ...>
<binding.jms />
</reference>
Users could also do
<reference ...>
<binding.jms>
<wireFormat.myFunkyFormatter/>
</binding.jms>
</reference>
and have the 'myFunkyFormatter' extension as part of their application not
some jar that needs to be added to the Tuscany runtime.
We could use the definitions.xml file to define things like the default
formatter for a binding, it also seems like that old discussion on using the
definitions.xml file to declare the extensions would help with the
myFunkyFormatter case as described at:
http://apache.markmail.org/message/unubgkqdcwwch66m
...ant
