I've come across difficulties related to this in the work I've done with extensions:
- I tried adding another interface type a while back in M1 to have an interface.smd to support the Dojo Simple Method Description for the AJAX binding (http://dojo.jot.com/SMD). I couldn't get it to work as the current code really didn't seem to be designed to support additional interface types. - Another problem already touched on here and earlier in this thread by Jim is that right now the logical representation is a Java interfaces and java.lang.Method is used to represent invocations. Because of this I've not yet been able to get a component to be able to call a reference using non-Java parameters, eg the JavaScript component invoking a reference using E4X objects. (there's a testcase trying to do this in the rhino container in my sandbox if you're interested in more details) - Also related to this is the message format, transformation and multiple databinding support thats being discussed in other threads and JIRAs. Should a component or binding be able to put whatever type of object it likes into the message payload and have the Tuscany runtime sort out transforming it as required by other component types? Right now thats not possible and each binding and component must always use the Java types from the logical Java interface representation for the payload. None of these 3 things are possible with either the current code or the sandbox code and extension APIs and AFAICT it would be non-trivial to fix. Do we want to support any of these in M2? I'd really like to support at least the middle one. ...ant On 6/22/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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]
