[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jim Marino wrote: > >>No problem that you are not Lance ;) I think a JMS binding >>would be great. One of the work items we need to do is to >>figure out a new binding strategy, particularly as we migrate >>to Axis2. I think it would be a good idea to also validate this >>against a JMS binding. I have the start of some ideas for that >>I'll post to the list so we can begin discussion. I think the >>binding work can be done in parallel to some of the changes we >>are making in the proxy/wire/invocation/ builder layer. So, >>when I'll try and write up those thoughts and we can discuss >>in more detail. > > > Sounds good. Dims has on a couple occasions invited me to get > involved with Axis2, which is a fine idea, but I'm not sure why > non-SOAP bindings such as JMS (or File, Email, etc) have to be > integrated into Tuscany via a SOAP stack. Or am I misunderstanding > what Axis2 is bringing to the table as far as Tuscany is > concerned? >
I can see cases where an XML infoset is being sent over these type of transport and I think Axis2 would provide a lot of infrastructure for doing that. However, there will also be cases where a non-XML representation is being used and other binding mechanisms would be more applicable. I think we need the flexibility here to support all these types of binding. -- Jeremy
