Jeremy, I actually had a look at the JMS binding document (which is still working in progress) inside the SOA bindings working group.
Since the doc is still working in progress I still can't really understand the full picture. Comments are inline marked with [RA] Regards, Rajith On 8/8/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > Hi All, > > After looking at the code I found that tuscany has bindings for > WebServices, > RMI and JBI. > > According to the SCA spec it also talks about bindings for > transports like > JMS (or have I misunderstood it?) > > Is there an effort to do such thing? I think a few people have thought about it but I don't think anyone is working on it at the moment. Any contributions in this area would be greatly appreciated. > Or is there a concept of Binding an EntryPoint to a transport? or > should it > be more of a high level thing such as WS, JBI, JCA or RMI? A Service (new name for EntryPoint since the 0.95 spec in July) is a logical concept in the assembly model that can be bound to a physical concept using a Binding. The binding covers all aspects of the logical->physical mapping including data format, protocol and transport (for example, an SDO serialized to XML passed as SOAP over HTTP, or a Java Object serialized to JSON in a HTTP request, or a DOM serialized to a normalized message over JBI, or ...) So from the assembly perspective binding is a high-level thing but the actual reality is that the runtime achieves this through a combination of low-level things.
[RA] Yes, I also agree that the binding is high-level thing. So it's easy to visualize it with WS, JBI or RMI However trying to visualize a binding for JMS is more difficult. It's true that the binding is actually a combination of low level things (like SOAP over HTTP). But SOAP, JSON or serialized DOM can still capture the semantics of a service. So the translation happens first from service to this intermediate layer (like SOAP, DOM that is rich enough to capture it) and is then used on a transport. However going from a Service directly to JMS is a *Big Jump*, and I am not sure how u can still capture the semantics of the service into JMS. What are your thoughts on this?
Some clarification is greatly appreciated. Hope that helps Jeremy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
