It would be good to have them. Not only are they useful in their own
right, they also validate that the runtime can handle data types and
formats that are not XML based.
Can you say what you weren't happy with in the approach? Do you have
any ideas on how they can be improved?
You'd mentioned to me that you weren't convinced on the JS client
side and that something like DOJO might be an alternative - is that
the kind of thing you're thinking of?
--
Jeremy
On Jul 29, 2006, at 2:11 AM, ant elder wrote:
Should I port the old jsonrpc or ajax binding extensions to the new
runtime?
There's one for jsonrpc-java that only supports entryPoints and one
using
DWR that also supports comet style externalServices. There's some
emails
describing them at [1] and [2]. I was never completely happy with the
approach of these bindings or if there was so much interest in
having them,
so what should I do - port them over as-is and continue to refine
them,
forget about them, something else?
...ant
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200605.mbox/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200603.mbox/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
