How about the binding.resource and implementation.resource? Should they be renamed to binding.http and implementation.file? :)
...ant On 8/20/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 to the rename. Best to name the binding by the transport mechanism > involved, not the implementation used to drive it. > > > Yours, Mike. > > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > ant elder wrote: > >> On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really > >>> generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually > using > >>> the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >> > >> > >> Right now that it uses DWR is an implementation detail thats not > exposed > >> anywhere, just as Axis2 is not exposed anywhere in our binding.ws, so > >> really > >> we can call it whatever we like. > > > > Axis2 is an implementation detail, and that's the reason why we do not > > say <binding.axis2> in SCA. > > > > However, the protocol used to expose a service in an SOA is not an > > implementation detail at all... > > > > Here are three examples: > > binding.ws -> the SOAP protocol is used to talk to the service > > binding.jsonrpc -> the JSON-RPC protocol is used to talk to the service > > binding.ajax -> the Direct Web Remoting protocol is used to talk to the > > service > > > > Binding.dwr will better indicate than binding.ajax that the service is > > provided through the DWR protocol. > > > >> To web clients binding.jsonrpc used to work > >> acidentically to binding.ajax but the last couple of changes to > >> binding.jsonrpc mean they've now got out of sync. If renaming > >> binding-ajax > >> will help you engage in keeping these both updated to work the same > then > >> Yes! lets rename it. > >> > >> ...ant > >> > >> > > > > OK, I'll rename it then. > > > > If you're talking about the change to how service URIs get determined, > > I'll be happy to help make it work like the other ones, but... > > > > - it didn't seem like it was initially working like the other ones, as > > it hardcoded a single URI and didn't use the binding URI at all, here's > > the code I found: > > > > public static final String SERVLET_PATH = > > AjaxServlet.AJAX_SERVLET_PATH + "/*"; > > > > and > > > > servlet.addService(binding.getName(), type, proxy); > > > > - answering my question on this subject at [1] would be a good starting > > point > > > > [1] > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200708.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
