On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino > <[email protected]> wrote:> >>>> - JSON-RPC binding not using the databinding framework >>> >>> I think we need to be careful about this.... >>> >>> From a maintenance point of view it would be useful to follow the same >>> infrastructure pattern regardless of what binding and implementation >>> are in use. It may be possible to embody the notion of conversion to >>> generic parameters into databinding itself. >>> > > Could you please clarify what do you mean by JSON-RPC not using > databinding framework. I'm pretty sure it is using the databinding > framework. Did you mean JSONP by any chance ? > >> >>> I'm +1 on further developing these changes in trunk at your >>> convenience. There are interesting questions to answer here. >>> >> >> OK, I've pushed some of the changes from sandbox to trunk and will try to >> explore this further. >> > > +1 to use trunk for further developing these changes. I'm particularly > interested in couple of them. > > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >
This off topic but to point out why there may be some confusion. Under TUSCANY-3635 I converted the JSONP binding to use the databinding framework to investigate/solve an issue reported on the ML. This was unrelated to any work that may be going on with JSONRPC. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
