On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Laws wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:54 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> Raymond Feng wrote: >> >> Nice diagrams. >> >> We probably should call it something else (such as >> Invocation Handler Extensibility) as it really goes beyond >> data transformation. >> >> Thanks, >> Raymond >> >> >> Exactly. My 2c: Confusing data-binding and >> invocation-binding/mediation will cause trouble. >> Invocation-mediation is useful, but it'll be better addressed >> separately from data-binding. >> >> -- Jean-Sebastien >> >> >> Looks like the spec folks might come up with a name for this so how >> about we just use whatever they choose: >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200808/msg00036.html >> >> ...ant >> >> >> Good spot ant. >> >> So how about "request binding" as a working title for this thread until >> OASIS do their thing. >> >> Simon >> > > What I like about the spec discussion is that if they adopt wireFormat as > the new term, it'll make really clear that operationSelection has nothing to > do with it :) > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > I'm not sure what you're getting at or what the smiley implies so could you explain a little more? I did intend this thread to include finding a way to do operation selection and it looks like the spec thread i linked to includes that as well? ...ant
