Hi, I intend to fix this by skipping copying if one end of the wire is either an instance of ServiceBinding or an instance of ReferenceBinding as we had agreed that where binding exists, the binding implementation will ensure passbyvalue semantics.
With respect to skipping copy when both ends of a wire are Components and there is data transformation that is going to happen on the wire I wonder if it is valid to assume that any transformed data will not contain any reference to the original data - and is as good as a copy. Thoughts ? Thanks. - Venkat On 3/7/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Yes, we did agree on this. I don't think this check is in place in the WirePostProcessor. Will take a look and fix that. Also, in general, I think we intended to skip this copying if there has been a data transformation performed ahead, in the wire. So, is it safe to simply check if the source and target have different databindings and if they do, then simply skip this copying. ? Thanks - Venkat On 3/6/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I think we have agreed on this optimization strategy in previous > discussions > on this ML. Venkat, do you know if we have implemented it (to skip > pass-by-value copy if the one end of the wire is a service or reference > with > remote binding)? > > Thanks, > Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: < [email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:45 AM > Subject: Re: [SCA Databinding] - Discussion on pass-by-value parameters > and > return values > > > > Fuhwei Lwo wrote: > >> Based on the SCA spec, there are two semantics for parameters and > return > >> values - pass-by-reference and pass-by-value. In the case of > >> pass-by-value with Web Service binding, after demarshalling, the data > >> object was newly created from the soap message (the original value) > so > >> Tuscany should have no need to make another new copy of the data > object > >> because this will have huge impact on performance. > >> > >> Just want to make sure I am on the right track. Thanks. > >> > >> Fuhwei Lwo > >> > >> > > Fuhwei, > > > > That makes sense to me. We need to avoid multiple transformations and > > unnecessary copies from XML to the form expected by the target > component > > implementation. If the target component implementation expects an SDO > > DataObject, the DataObject should be created directly from the XML > stream > > out of the SOAP body. > > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > >
