Yes, that's what I meant.
I'll refactor the wrapper code out as an IDL-independent model.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Moving databinding-framework to kernel, was: How can we insert
a DataBindingInterceptor for the outbound wire of a composite-level
reference?
On Sep 22, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
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?
I don't think the framework should know about WSDL artifacts and
XmlSchema. The semantic of wrap/unwrap is a general concept that would
apply to other IDLs as well. If by "refactor the Wrapper into SPI
Operation" you mean create an IDL-independent representation of a
wrap/unwrap operation, then I agree we should.
--
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]
