I think as long as they are not generated per component, then it makes
sense to put the proxy along with its binding code (e.g. atom.js with
binding-atom or binding-atom-abera, etc.)
+1
Luciano Resende wrote:
I was doing a quick review on what is available today for as
JavaScript client proxies for the Atom [1], JSON-RPC [2][3][4] and
HTTP bindings [5], and where they are available today.
If we look in the JSON-RPC client proxy, we have it in multiple places
[2][3][4] and with multiple names (binding-atom.js and jsonrpc.js),
this certainly cause confusion and with time make the contents
different. Also, the other client proxies are available in a different
place then the bind itself.
Where these client proxies should reside (in the binding project) ? I
did a quick try by moving the binding-atom.js to binding-atom-abdera
module and it seems to work fine.
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-widget-runtime/src/main/resources/binding-atom.js
[2]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-widget-runtime/src/main/resources/binding-jsonrpc.js
[3]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-web-runtime/src/main/resources/jsonrpc.js
[4]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/binding-jsonrpc-runtime/src/main/resources/org/apache/tuscany/sca/binding/jsonrpc/provider/jsonrpc.js
[5]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation-widget-runtime/src/main/resources/binding-http.js
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
