On Monday, December 5, 2011 4:13:49 PM UTC-8, Pete F wrote: > > Is this global, rather than "types per service" angle the key then? > Yes.
Java types are defined in a global scope, but that global scope is not really "global" in the geographical sense. It is a confined runtime environment established by classloaders. A Java class named "foo.Bar" can have different definitions on different machines. I try to expand that scope to the true global scope that covers the whole world. Under such scope, we can use the same Java syntax to write programs, but every data type we define and reference to has a unique place in the world. Two machines can 'see' the same definition of a type named "imop:example.com/foo.Bar", and only example.com can provide its definition. In other words, the true global scope is established by everyone on the Internet, not your local configurations. > Does it follow that you *must* then do the dynamic binding, rather > > than the latter being a good thing of itself? > Dynamic binding is only necessary when an unknown object is encountered at runtime. For singleton objects whose type is known at compile time, it is indeed not necessary. My current implementation bound both cases dynamically, but it is just a proof-of-concept version anyway ;-) I am working on rewriting the whole thing using Xtext and generate pure Java classes from Meso source code. Dynamic binding will only be used when necessary. > does > > instanceof imop:foo.com/IService > > imply a round trip to the remote node (!!) -or are you already > sitting on a cache of type information (as you would be having > consumed some wsdl) > Wsdl is like a description of a singleton object, so we can statically bind to any service described by wsdl. But if we want our client program bind to an abstract service interface, a round trip to the remote node at runtime would be necessary since you haven't seen the concrete service at compile time. If we put the returned service descriptor in a persistent cache with an indefinite TTL, than the actual round trip traffic is only needed once. > Can't say I would want to pitch this stuff to Gilad Bracha ;-) > Well, I don't personally know him, but I would definitely love to have a chance to chat with him :-) Stefan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/XJ7oxZ1nN78J. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
