+1 on keeping separate interfaces. ******************************************* Richard A. Sitze [EMAIL PROTECTED] CORBA Interoperability & WebServices IBM WebSphere Development
R J Scheuerle
Jr/Austin/IBM@IB To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MUS cc:
Subject: Re:
SerializationContext/DeserializationContext cleanup?
05/09/2002 02:40
PM
Please respond
to axis-dev
Generally, separating interfaces from implementation is a good thing.
For one, it gives us the opportunity to make this a pluggable piece in the
future.
Also it establishes better boundaries between the components. Before I
made these changes,
there was a lot of interactions between components using public or package
visible fields.
I feel that the Context classes are a lot better off (and remain better
organized) now that we have
interfaces. I would vote -1 to removing the interfaces.
Rich Scheuerle
XML & Web Services Development
512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115)
Glen Daniels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Axis-Dev (E-mail)'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
05/09/2002 01:51 PM Subject:
Please respond to axis-dev SerializationContext/DeserializationCont
ext cleanup?
Does anyone (Rich?) have any real reasons why we have SerializationContext
and SerializationContextImpl? I know the JAX-RPC SerializationContext is
an interface we have to implement, but it seems to me we could just as
easily (and much more conveniently) have axis.encoding.SerializationContext
be a class instead of introducing yet another interface.
Same holds for DeserializationContext/DeserializationContextImpl.
Do you think these are useful + important points of extensibility? Are
there really going to be other implementations?
If we could coalesce these guys, that would make my life a happier place.
--Glen
