> complexity into our wire format behaviors (not that I couldn't be > convinced). It's certainly simpler to describe the wireFormat if we > say there is a default used for serialization, period, than to have to > introduce the request-format-as-context into the mix.
A single static default wire format is simpler to code/describe. I don't think it's as user friendly but I could live with it. > > Another point: IMHO, I think in general non-SCA <-> SCA binding.jms > interactions maybe should be thought of as requiring wireFormat > configuration, even if that configuration choice happens to be using > wireFormat.jmsdefault. Maybe it involves some burden on the user to > realize this fact. In SCA<->SCA flows, on the other hand, I would Some burden on the documentation to point it out I guess. I agree that if people are including binding.jms they are probably expecting to communicate with non-SCA systems. I don't think we should make it mandatory though to have to modify the default behaviour to make this work. > expect it's more important to "just work" without any extra config. > In this SCA/SCA case, though, if both sides implement the OASIS > binding.jms spec, they can handle either bytes/text, so this question > isn't super-important. > > Scott > Simon
