For all of these:
<cns:component
<bns:reference and service
<ins:interceptorName
the element is an extension-specific, unique, versioned identifier
for the component implementation type, binding, or interceptor
builder. Meeraj's unmarshalling framework is able to dispatch the to
the appropriate unmarshaller in order to read the element in builder-
specific manner. The content of that is completely under the control
of the marshaller/unmarshaller for that extension so there is no need
for xml extension hooks.
This data is not intended for use by end-users so we can be very
precise with the XML definitions (read really ugly XML, lots of
namespaces etc.). We need that in order to maintain portability
between different implementation and different versions of the same
implementation.
Hope that makes sense.
--
Jeremy
On Feb 25, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Feb 25, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I'm little confused by this one. AIUI we have two configurations
in the physical world:
1) two co-located components connected by a wire
the PCS would contain two PCDs and a PWD for the connection
2) a component connected to the network via a binding
the PCD would contain a PCD with binding configuration for the
remote service/reference
These could actually be mixed (a PCD may have one service/
reference bound to the network and another wired to a different co-
located component).
With that in mind, I don't see why we would have 'bindingType' on
a PWD. In the optimal case, the controller would have reduced that
to:
<wire source="foo#ref" target="bar#srv"/>
In the non-optimal case, we would need to define interceptor
chains for each of the source/callback operations, something like:
<wire source="foo#ref" target="bar#srv">
<interface>
<operation name="method1">*
<paramType type="type1"/> <!-- deals with overloading
<ins:interceptorName ...>* <!-- unique QName for each
interceptor type
<callback>
<operation name="cb1">*
<ins:interceptorName ...>*
For the second configuration above, we would just specify binding
configuration in the PCD for each physically bound service/
reference. Something like:
<cns:component name="foo">
...
<bns:reference name="ref">* <!-- unique QName for
reference binding
... binding config elements ...
<interface>
<operation name="method1">*
<paramType type="type1"/> <!-- do we need to deal with
overloading?
<ins:interceptorName ...>* <!-- outbound interceptors
<callback>
<operation name="method1">*
<paramType type="type1"/>
<ins:interceptorName ...>* <!-- inbound interceptors
<bns:service name="srv">* <!-- unique QName for
service binding
... binding config elements ...
<interface>
...
<callback>
...
I'm cool with the format above provided we allow for extensibility
info in the interceptor (I think it needs to be more than a name).
Having the param types as elements rather than attributes is better
as is the separation of forward and callback ops. Also, you are
right, we don't need binding type.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
