On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >
The wider implication of this discussion is that we need to add a specific wireFormat.jmsDefault. I've added a JIRA for this (TUSCANY-2930). Simon
