1) I have a set of slides describing the RESTfult services using Tuscany SCA. I can share it.
2) The other perspective is that SCA doesn't want to reinvent all the wheels. IMO, using JAX-WS, JAX-RS annotations to provide the mapping in java for the certain metadata is beneficial to SCA. Thanks, Raymond ________________________________________________________________ Raymond Feng [email protected] Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com ________________________________________________________________ On Aug 27, 2010, at 10:44 AM, ant elder wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I'd try: >>>> >>>> <tuscany:binding.rest name="rest"> >>>> <tuscany:operationSelector.rpc /> >>>> <tuscany:response> >>>> <tuscany:wireFormat.json /> >>>> </tuscany:response> >>>> </tuscany:binding.rest> >>>> >>>> This would then be accessible via URL >>>> >>>> <base service URI> ?method=<operation name>&parm1=<value>&parm2=<value> >>>> >>> >>> I've tried that and still get the IllegalArgumentException: wrong >>> number of arguments. Looking in the code thats caused by the loop at >>> line 113 of RPCOperationSelectorInterceptor which is only adding >>> things to the message if the operation parameters have the jaxrs >>> QueryParam annotation, which this service doesn't use. Whats the >>> intention, should the binding work with arbitrary services or only for >>> for jaxrs classes? >>> >>> ...ant >>> >> >> Another option is to add support for declaratively add the mapping, >> which is in my todo list, but not yet implemented. But, stepping back, >> why not use the JAX-RS annotations ? >> > > Because one of the big points of SCA is that the service > implementations are protocol neutral? > > Can you say a bit about what you're thinking of for "support for > declaratively add the mapping"? > > ...ant
