On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: >> Its worth noting that in the user survey we did a while back of all >> the bindings we have the Tuscany http binding was the second most >> popular with only the WS binding being more used. Hard to tell what >> people are doing with it, i've wondered if that was a survey mistake, >> or maybe they use it to have have an SCA component with access to the >> http request/response which has been asked for a few times on the user >> list. >> >> Co-existence and compatibility with the existing Tuscany http binding >> is an interesting question. They are in separate namespaces so we >> could in theory have them both, though that seems bound to result in >> errors when the wrong namespace or modules are included. Maybe in 2.x >> we could say we only support the OASIS http binding spec, though that >> doesn't quite fit in with whats being said about backward >> compatibility. >> > > I have created TUSCANY-2968 and have started working on this. For now, > I'll create a tuscany-http-oasis and tuscany-http-runtime-oasis > modules from our current http binding and start adding the new > behaviors specified on the draft specification. I guess the idea would > be to continue to have similar functionality as we have today, and > once things are stable on the new binding, we could promote it to the > official http binding. > > Thoughts ? >
Sounds good to me, presumably in 2.x the OASIS one would be the primary binding and the old Tuscany one would be deprecated just there for backward compatibility. ...ant
