On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Scott Kurz <[email protected]> wrote: > Simon, > > Still looking over your changes.... just wanted to respond that my > impression & working understanding has been that we assume we have > unique operation names in a bunch of places and use String.equals() > for operation name matching... certainly within some binding > implementations... so making this assumption in another place wouldn't > be a big deal. That is, unless this code needs to be used with local > interfaces, in which case we do have the potential for operator > overloading, however do we really need all this interface modeling for > local interfaces? Not sure..... > > ....
Ok so from your and Raymond's comments it seems like we should be OK with operation name matching. > > Also I noticed you introduced > > <complexType name="WireFormatJMSDefaultType"/> > <element name="wireFormat.jmsDefault" type="t:WireFormatJMSDefaultType"/> > > I did notice OASIS is talking about "wireFormat.jmsdefault" (lowercase > 'd'), so since we're implementing OASIS here that seems to be a better > choice even though it's still in the Tuscany NS. > > Scott. > I didn't intent to commit this change with the T2931 changes. I'd started playing with it this as part of our discussion on creating a separate default wire format (http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40tuscany.apache.org/msg06042.html) but that's as far as I got. I hadn't noticed that OASIS had created a wireformat.jmsdefault but I'm happy to change the Tuscany version to lowercase "d" if we think that makes life easier for 2.x when we convert to OASIS spec support. Simon
