On 7/24/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Simon Laws wrote: <snip> > Ah, thanks Mike. I didn't latch onto the implication of the word intent. > The choice we are talking about here seems more like a concrete decision > than an intent. Does this match well with the, erm, intention of intents? > > Simon > It is one use of intents - and, in my opinion, it is a reasonable match. It tells the binding to apply a particular policy - the policy of using a specific transport. Yours, Mike. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So I can summarize a few things from this thread.
1/ That in this case the concensus so far is that binding-ws should have selectable transports. 2/ There are a number of ways we can describe the selection - intents - uri - child xml elements of binding.ws 3/ There are a number of ways we can describe the configuration of the selected transport - further parameters on the uri - child xml elements of binding.ws It seems to me that the uri approach is the easiest starting point (this function also needs to be added to the MS binding so I imagine the same/similar code applies). I'm not in a position to address this just now (am back working on the distributed runtime) but it answers my question about how this could be done. If there is anyone out there who fancies having a play with some binding stuff then this is another good one to look at. Simon
