[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3894?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13061378#comment-13061378
]
Scott Kurz commented on TUSCANY-3894:
-------------------------------------
I gave what I called the "object reference graph" issue a bit more thought.
I'm sorry if this discussion is rediscovering the wheel since I'm sure I could
search and read that it's already been well-understood (on this list even???),
but here goes my rehash:
Let me use an example:
If I have: public void m1(Person p1, Person p2) and if I do:
Person p = ...
ref.m1(p,p);
then I'm asking is the object identity on the client side preserved on the
service side, i.e. does p1==p2?
I was concerned because for the binding-ws-axis2 impl, the answer is definitely
"no", and it seemed nice to have this local default binding impl behave in the
same way as the interoperable WS binding. It's different because with
MediatorImpl.copyInput(...) and the use of IdentityHashMap, p1==p2 is "true".
However, for our own binding-rmi, object identity is preserved. So I guess
you could say it's just a question of whether you want the binding to be more
Java-centric (RMI-like) or XML-centric (WS-like), and I guess precedence would
argue to leave things alone all other things being equal.
That means the only open issue is are we OK with the single-databinding
requirement or should we add the ability to leverage the
DataTransformationInterceptor? (With the delegation potentially added by
TUSCANY-3884, we could have both and then the question is which should the
default be)?
Circling back to the object identity thing.... if a switch to use the DTI with
XML-centric copy as the default changed the object identity story, then, I'd
think this wouldn't be a huge deal, coming before a final 2.0 release
especially.
Any thoughts?
> Binding.sca local behavior: copy vs. mediate, same-databinding assumption
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TUSCANY-3894
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3894
> Project: Tuscany
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SCA Java Runtime
> Affects Versions: Java-SCA-2.x
> Reporter: Scott Kurz
> Assignee: Scott Kurz
> Priority: Minor
>
> As discussed in: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3884
> the binding-sca-runtime code seems to assume that the reference/service sides
> share a common databinding, which might not be a desirable limitation.
> Also the object reference graph of copy vs. mediate seems to be different,
> which might not be preferable either.
> Just working on some tests now before commenting further, however I wanted to
> open this up to move the discussion out of the 3884 JIRA, to avoid confusion
> as this is a separate issue from simply adding the ability to delegate.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
