On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > > Currently the infrastructure relies on resetting the databinding on > the interface for a service or reference and the wire format providers > take charge of doing this. However the function is such at the moment > that it resets the data binding en-masse for all operations and all > input and output parameters. > > Raymond has suggested, I think, that extra function could be added to > provided this extra fidelity.
Right. Raymond was suggesting that, rather than relying on the convenience of resetDataBinding, we might need to configure the input/output of the binding interface models separately. I think an interesting question to ask is: am I requiring that the application/componentType databinding be split out into an input/output introspection/calculation in my motivating use case. A quick review makes me think the answer is 'no'. Maybe I'm not thinking this through all the way yet, but if I'm right then we only have to worry about a new granularity in configuring the binding interface model. In the WF cases in which we bypass the DataTransformationInterceptor today, I'm not sure if it's because of some non-trivial code which would need to be written to do so or is it just because of convenience (or performance?). I can see in DataTransformationInterceptor.transform() that we already have a path to do a no-op in case the two DataType(s) are equals(), so it seems some part of the functionality must be there to let DTI do a no-op rather than bypassing DTI altogether by not establishing it as an interceptor on the chain. Scott.
