Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Laws" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:40 AM
To: "tuscany-dev" <[email protected]>
Subject: [1.x][2.x] separate wireFormats for request and response paths
We have some code in the wireFormat framework that takes steps towards
allowing different wire formats on requests and responses. However
this doesn't work yet as the databinding framework also needs suitable
configuration. Currently it seems that the databinding framework
configuration is driven by the interface contract on the binding
provider and hence doesn't allow for separate request and response
configurations.
* Having an example will help us better understand the requirements.
* For each operation, there is an inputType and an outputType. They can be
configured with different databindings. It's up to the binding provider to
understand the wireFormat for requests and responses and then reflect that
in the Operation model.
This is also embodied in the wire and interface structures. The base
InterfaceImpl resetDataBinding() operation sets the databing for input
and output parameters to be the same.
* We should take "resetDataBinding" as a convenient method to set a uniform
databinding for all types used by the interface. It's still possible that we
set different databindings for types used by the interface/operation.
The databinding framework itself does seem to allow for this in its
detailed structures but its not clear how to enable it without making
changes.
Has this been considered in the past and discounted?
Is there a way to suitably configure the databinding framework?
* We had some discussions before on this ML about the granularity. Some
people viewed that having parameters or return value of the same operation
use different databindings is a bit crazy :-). I'm open to any valid use
cases though.
Regards
Simon
