Raymond Feng wrote:
+1 on what Mike said.
We have been trying to avoid the implementation (physical) IC assuming
the componentType IC would be the same as the implementation IC. Taking
java component as an example, this is basically to define how a class
"implements" an interface in the SCA f
I'm going to take this off list as we have a disconnect here that is not
Tuscany specific.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: componentType interfaces and data transforms
scabooz wrote:
Ok, that's a good start. What did you mean by ignored. I would have
expected that the WSDL was available in the logical in-memory object
model so that interceptors, binding impls, etc would be able to see what
was in the cT side file.
Dave
Dave,
That is exactly what I woul
ke Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: componentType interfaces and data transforms
Comments inline,
scabooz wrote:
But if the WSDL specified in the componentType is the 'mapped to' WSDL
from the implementation then it does
8 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: componentType interfaces and data transforms
Scott,
The interpretation here depends on your take on componentType files.
My take has *ALWAYS* been that componentType files are meant to
express something about the implementation rather than express some
"design const
valid.
Thanks,
Raymond
--
From: "Mike Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:09 AM
To:
Subject: Re: componentType interfaces and data transforms
Scott,
The interpretation here depends on your take on componentTy
]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: componentType interfaces and data transforms
Scott,
The interpretation here depends on your take on componentType files.
My take has *ALWAYS* been that componentType files are meant to express
something about the implementation rather
Scott,
The interpretation here depends on your take on componentType files.
My take has *ALWAYS* been that componentType files are meant to express something about the
implementation rather than express some "design constraints". Indeed, the separate concept of
"constraining type" was invente
