Raymond Feng wrote:
The binding-specific exception/fault mapping won't be exposed to the
programming model. I was proposing to make the mapping extensible so
that we can support multiple patterns without impacting the SCA
application code.
[snip]
Scott Kurz wrote:
I agree that this is where the mapping patterns are coming from.
But doesn't this undermine the
whole binding-independent programming model feature advertised by SCA?
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having trouble understanding what problem
we're trying to solve. Could one of you post an example illustrating the
issue in application developer terms?
My naive view is:
- binding-independent programming model sounds good!
- extensible mapping sounds scary, as an application developer will I
need to understand all these extensible mappings?
But again I'm probably missing something as I'm not really able to
understand what you're talking about, an example would help a lot.
Thanks.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
