On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Yang Lei <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello , > > I read the proposal for HTTP binding specification : > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00078.html > > I wonder if we can support part of the specification so that we can have a > generic binding based on HTTP protocol , use the wireFormat and > operationSelector definition to support a specific mapping between > messageBody and SCA services... > > The part of the schema interests me is: > > <binding.http uri=”xs:anyURI”? ...> > <wireFormat/>? > <operationSelector/>? > <response> > <wireFormat>? > </response>? > </binding.http> > > One sample of using this binding will be converting the JSON-RPC binding to > be an HTTP binding with the wireFormat of JSON-PRC: > > <component name="Catalog"> > <implementation.java class="services.FruitsCatalogImpl”/> > <service name="Catalog"> > <t:binding.http uri="http://localhost:8080/Catalog";> > <wireFormat.jsonrpc/> > </t:binding.http> > </service> > </component> > > <reference name="catalog" target="Catalog“> > <t:binding.http> > <wireFormat.jsonrpc/> > </t:binding.http> > </reference> > > I noticed there are some discussion on the list last year on this: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tuscany-dev/200810.mbox/%[email protected]%3e > > Appreciate your comments. > > Regards, > > Yang Lei > >
I think we could definitely experiment on that direction as it seems the direction being proposed to OASIS. One thing to have in mind is that this might impact the functionality existent in the current binding.http, so it might be good to start this effort as a fork/copy of the binding, and decide which one would be named binding.http. What others think ? -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
