----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: Moving databinding-framework to kernel, was: How can we insert a
DataBindingInterceptor for the outbound wire of a composite-level reference?
On Sep 21, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Sep 21, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi, Jim.
I'm preparing the move now, basically refining the code and adding
more test cases.
For package names, I'm thinking of the following:
org.apache.tuscany.spi.databinding (DataBinding SPIs)
org.apache.tuscany.spi.databinding.extension (DataBinding related base
classes for extensibility)
org.apache.tuscany.core.databinding (Core DataBinding implementations)
org.apache.tuscany.core.databinding.xml (Other simple databindings and
transformers, for DOM, StAX, SAX, I/O etc)
Just to be clear, I only think the base databinding framework should go
in core (I think that is what you have in mind) -e.g. JAXB, Castor,
SDO, etc. would still be service extensions.
+1
+1 from me as well.
BTW, we will need to add "idl/wsdl" as a dependency to the core for
the databinding part.
I guess we have to put that in right? It would be nice if we didn't but
it may be something that has to be done.
Why would we? I can see adding interfaces to spi to support IDL
implementations but wsdl (and java) should just be an implementation of
those interfaces.
The DataBinding code has some dependencies on the WSDL WrapperStyle
information and XmlSchema. Should we refactor the Wrapper into SPI
Operation?
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
