Maybe it would help for me to point out that I'd opened 1678,79,80 before the refactoring for TUSCANY-1559 was performed.
As I have the time I'll try to understand to what degree if any 1559 may have addressed the issues I mentioned. But Raymond, on the surface it seems like you're suggesting going back to how it was pre-1559, though with a per-implementation-type extension instead of just the old PassByValueInvoker associated with the Java implementation. To me it seemed like one not-too-hard change to address 1678 would be to have a flag in the Message SPI that says, "there's no need to do a copy". This would be off by default but a binding impl or databinding transform could switch it on. On 10/5/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm looking into JIRA TUSCANY-1678, TUSCANY-1679, TUCANY-1680. At this > moment, the pass-by-value interceptor is added by the > DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor. I start to wonder if it's the right > approach. The pass-by-value semantics is somehow implementation-specific > and > it also requires some metadata from the Implementation (for example, > @AllowsPassByReference in java components). It seems that the > implementation > type extension will have more knowledge to enforce the pass-by-value. > > Does it make better sense to have implementation type extension be > responsible to set up the pass-by-value interceptor? > > Thanks, > Raymond > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
