ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Simon Laws wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:54 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto:[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
I'm getting at the fact that the thread started with 'databinding
framework enhancements' and that I think - and have already said in the
thread - that:
- operationSelection should be addressed outside of databinding
- enhancing the databinding framework to do operationSelection is not a
good idea.
The smiley implies that I'm happy that the spec seems to go into the
direction of separating the two. I'm hoping that Tuscany can follow that
guidance from the spec, which is different from what was described in [1].
Hope this helps.
[1] http://marc.info/?l=tuscany-dev&m=121982857827605
--
Jean-Sebastien
