On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > snip... >> 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. > > Right, I think the binding interface model is the one we need to > update. The component type should remain the same as we nee to > transform to/from those types as specified. > >> >> 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. > > Not sure why it is as it is. I suppose it is a small performance > optimization in missing out the interceptor altogether. > > Simon >
Right I'm going to have a go at this so have raised TUSCANY-2931 to track changes. Simon
