I think the current state is that although the binding.http has the start of some support for this the tuscany-binding-jsonp-runtime still works and will take prcidence if that jar is included. So for the time being i think it should all be fine just using binding.jsonp and binding-jsonp-runtime (Simon has been using that i think so can correct me if thats wrong?).
The OASIS bindings TC has been actively looking at binding.http recently, there is some doc on uses cases and there should be some spec updates and draft binding.http schema quite soon so i was waiting to see what that looked like before taking the tuscany impl much further just now. See oasis email thread - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201009/msg00030.html. ...ant On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Florian MOGA <[email protected]> wrote: > I've seen Simon started fixing things on the json databinding and I would > like to update the jsonp sample as well to also use arrays and BigDecimal. > Are we keeping the current format for the scdl or switch to the wire > declaration? I can't estimate how much such a change would take but if it > needs some time I propose to deffer it as it looks like a nice enhancement > for the next releases after 2.0. > > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:06 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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 >> > >> >> Sounds like a plan. It's messing up the tests in the old >> binding-jsonp-runtime as there is some strange dependency on some of >> the http runtime artifacts. Can we just remove this from the build >> now? >> >> Simon >> >> -- >> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org >> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com > >
