On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:21 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't think there is a single correct answer for how to arrange all > that. There is a good chance that the user that wanted > wireformat.jsonrpc instead of binding.jsonrpc will want the same in > 2.x. Conversely, it is simpler to type with individual bindings > instead of wireFormats, eg: > > <binding.jsonp> > > instead of: > > <binding.http> > <wireFormat.jsonp/> > </binding.http> > > Perhaps we should just support all the different approaches? It does > seem good if however we do it that there is minimal code duplication > so perhaps we should look at arranging the code so we can easily > support <binding.jsonp> scdl but that gets translated into a runtime > config thats shares all the code of the equivalent of binding.http > with wireFormat.jsonp. > > Comments? > No comments so i went ahead and tried that with the jsonp binding. The JSONPBinding class in its constructor configures an HTTPBinding [1] and the binding-http-runtime does all the work now so binding-jsonp-runtime is no longer needed. That looks good to me, and as function gets added to the http binding (eg support for basic auth, gzip encoding, etc) the jsonp binding could also pick that up. ...ant [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/binding-jsonp/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/binding/jsonp/JSONPBinding.java
