Currently I believe it's not possible in an sDep to bind an input parameter
to another disseminator (it only allows bindings to datastreams in the same,
or another, object).
(although it is possible to fudge this in the sDep by building a URL for the
object's disseminator, using $pid, and using this in the WSDL endpoint
definition - but this seems - wrongly - to move the binding into the WSDL)
The Smiley collection demo gets around this by having a datastream on the
data object, type "E", which calls the disseminator. The datastream can
then be used as inputs to other disseminators, effectively this provides a
mechanism for binding to disseminators.
This introduces a circular dependency - the sDep relies on the datastreams
defined in the object; and these object datastreams are then "bound" to a
disseminator defined in the content model objects.
I wonder what people's thoughts are on this and how it is addressed by the
current proposals on improving the CMA. It looks like Asger's datastream
methods proposal would address this to some degree, but it seems the allowed
binding in the sDep would still have to be modified to allow binding to the
datastream methods.
Do we have any current proposals, within the CMA 3.x, to allow binding to
disseminators? The Smiley Collection demo provides a use case for this.
Regards
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Fedora-commons-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-developers
