Hi, Simon.
Nice summary:-). I was about to drop a note but you are ahead of me. The
code is still evolving and the WireableWiring is gone (with some methods
merged into SCABinding).
Please see my comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:35 AM
Subject: WireableBinding questions
I have some questions about the new interface WireableBinding that was
checked in as part of revision r557195.
1. Is it intended that all bindings should (eventually) implement this
interface, or only some of them? If only some of them, what's the
guideline for which bindings should implement it and which should not?
2. For bindings that don't (yet) implement it (i.e., all the current
extension bindings), what are the limitations on what can be done
with these bindings?
The WireableBinding interface is now gone.
3. This interface introduces three new getter/setter properties:
TargetComponent
TargetComponentService
TargetBinding
How are these set/used for reference bindings by the core wiring
framework? And how are they set/used for service bindings?
These methods are now in SCABinding. They are used to create local wires for
SCA bindings. The target is set when a reference SCABinding is resolved to
be wired to a target component service.
This is a staged approach. Ideally, we should be able to use the URI
(componentName/serviceName) to represent the endpoint reference which can
materialized locally if the target exists.
4. The core wiring framework is now calling getURI() as part of its
determination of whether or not a binding has an endpoint. Does
this put new obligations on extension bindings to call their setURI()
method even if no "uri" attribute was specified in the SCDL?
No, for other bindings than SCABinding, the current code assumes it always
has a URI. SCABinding is the only binding that supports "target" attribute
at this moment. If a binding starts to support "componentName/serviceName"
addressing, then "uri" attribute should be correctly configured.
5. Are there any other changes that extension binding writers need
to make (or are recommended to make) to fully support the new
multiple bindings support for references with multiplicity and
promotion?
No.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
