Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > - The whole interface definition space, like you said we need a nice way > to deal with Java and WSDL interfaces, we also need to understand how > somebody can extend Tuscany to provide support for additional interface > definition languages (e.g. a ruby base class or a ruby module).
We originally had a logical representation for this and changed part way through M1 to using Java interfaces (bytecode generating them from the WSDL definition when necessary). Do you think we should stick with the pure-Java approach (with addition annotations if necessary) or are you thinking of going back to a logical representation? -- Jeremy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
