Sorry, I was supposed to create two patches, one for the update and the
other one for the new feature.
Here're the splitted patches.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: Type definitions in composites, was: [PATCH] Porting SDO
DataBinding to the new SPI in Jeremy's sandbox
Thanks Raymond - I'll work on applying this.
I think you've identified a key issue here - how does a databinding's
type system mapping work in the new recursive model?
In the 0.9 view, modules were flat so it was easy to make the
association between a module and a TypeHelper. Recursion opens up new
questions such as:
* should there be a heirarchy of types to match the hierarchy
of composites?
* what are the sharing rules for types? Are all types shared between
a parent composite and its children? Are none?
* if a type is defined in multiple places in a hierarchy,
which one is used?
Any thoughts on how we would like this to work?
--
Jeremy
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi, Jeremy.
Attached is a patch for the SDO DataBinding code in your sandbox. It
ports the code to the new SPIs in the sandbox. Please review and
apply.
There're several TODOs in the code. We need to understand how to get
the corresponding SDO TypeHelper for a given DeploymentContext.
Thanks, Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
