On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Brent Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well I guess we need to be a bit more precise about what the likely >> impact is. IIUC from the commit the model is that >> the JDKInvoker and implementation invoker implement the transition >> between the local (to them) component implementation and Tuscany's >> internal representation of holders. Between these and the binding >> there are a set of interceptors on both reference and binding sides. >> So potentially any interceptor, and the binding runtimes themselves >> of course, could be impacted by the presence of holders. >> > > Yes, and this is what is worrisome about the current design. > >> >> Doesn't even one parameter as a holder imply two return values? One >> for the holder and one for the return (which would also be a holder >> according to JAXWS). >> > > Yes, but the 1.x support only worked with void return types and a > single Holder. Basically, the return value became the Holder rather > than whatever was returned from the method invocation. > > Brent >
Ah right, I see. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't have a quick answer to this other than stepping through each part of the infrastructure and setting out what adding multiple return types implies. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
