On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > > * 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.
What about, as a motivating example, a case where a service with a 2-way operation is bound with binding.jms with a SCDL-specified response destination, but it is not really a "response" but more of a "forward" to a new message consumer. This might make it appear more natural to use a different WF for req/resp. One thing to note is that, if we mix-and-match the JMS WFs we support today, we don't really end up with any cases where the DataTransformationInterceptor needs to be used for both req/resp, but in different ways. We only end up with cases where one way uses the interceptor and the other needs to bypass it completely. Not to say it wouldn't be worth to think about a more general solution, but a motivation isn't leaping to mind immediately. Scott
