Hi Raymond,
I agree with Jim on that the indexing is cryptic. How about this...
@DataType((<arg1_type>, <arg2_type>)<returnType>).
i.e. we specify for all arguments and the returntype. The transformer
decides to transform only those whose source and target types differ. Makes
sense ?
Thanks
- Venkat
On 9/27/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that we have to revisit this issue again. During past
> discussions, we thought it would be sufficient to only support
> interface and operation level databinding declarations and assumed
> that mixed databindings on the same operation was crazy :-).
>
> I now have difficulties to identify which parameters for a java
> method should be transformed based on the interface/operation level
> databinding. Let's have an example below.
>
> Case 1: The "xml" parameter is an XML string, but "plainStr" is a
> simple plain string
> @DataType(name="xml:string")
> String myOp(String xml, String plainStr, int i);
>
> I can ssume that parameters with primitive types such as "i" bear
> JavaDataBinding but I cannot differentiate "xml" and
> "plainStr" (neither the return value).
>
> Case 2:
> @DataType(name="commonj.sdo.DataObject)
> Address getCustomer(Customer customer, String str, Object obj);
>
> Is it reasonable to have "Customer" a DataObject and "Address" a
> java bean? How about "obj"?
>
This seems a bit strange. What meaning do str and obj have in the
service contract? Maybe there is a better example?
> The key issue here is that java method by default uses
> JavaDataBinding. Declaring a different databinding such as
> XMLString or SDO actually starts to have mixed databindings for one
> method.
>
> Interestingly, this issue is not really a problem for WSDL which
> usually types the operation parameters as XSD types and a java/xml
> binding technology such as AXIOM, DOM, SDO or JAXB comes behind it.
> One databinding for the whole WSDL port type sounds reasonable.
>
> I have a proposal to add an attribute to the operation level
> databinding declarations to explicitly spell out the list of
> parameters (or return value).
>
> @DataType(name="commonj.sdo.DataObject" parameters={0, 2, -1}) //
> "parameters" is a list of indexes for the args, -1 for return value
>
Indexing like this is error prone and difficult to read. If do need
multiple parameter types, we should have an an optional attribute
specifying the return type and a collection of data types for
parameters similar to @Constructor
> If "parameters" is not specified then we assume it applies to all
> parameters and the return value.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
