I don't think the E4X databinding makes a copy. Its just a wrapper over an OMElement to adapt to the Rhino E4X API. So wiring a JavaScript component to another component that uses OMElements would have an E4X transformation but both components would be using the same underlying OMElement objects.
...ant On 3/9/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I think it's safe assumption that the databinding transformation will create a copy of the data. Thanks, Raymond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Venkata Krishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [SCA Databinding] - Discussion on pass-by-value parameters and return values > 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] >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
