snip.. > My concern was that we're adding another column to the "wire format > decision matrix", with columns already probably including "binding" > and "wireFormat". It's not that we couldn't do the job of coding and > documenting this... it's that I'm worried the user will look at the > "matrix" we document encompassing all the WFs and bindings and think > that this is overly complicated.
+1 > > But ... maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here... we probably need to > build our understanding of what a wireFormat behavior does from the > bottom-up, one case at a time, so this has been a good place to > start/continue the discussion. +1. It's unfortunate that the default JMS wire format has this complexity. > > So let me add one more twist: do we agree that participation in a > callback does not add to the "context" here in determining the bytes > vs. text default? I.e., if, rather than sending a response to a > forward request, I call over the callback interface, should I use > 'bytes' as default no matter what? Yes, you would configure a callback binding independently of a forward call binding. > > Scott >
