No comments on this for a while so if no one shouts i'm going to do this to
fix TUSCANY-1559.

   ...ant

On 9/5/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sure, thats just making the "source and target interfaces use different
> databindings caused a databinding transformation" explicit on the message.
> So if you want it explicit like that that sounds ok to me as well.
>
> Still seems like the pass-by-value code should be out of the Java
> implementation and part of the Tuscany core to me though so it works for all
> implementation types.
>
>    ...ant
>
> On 9/5/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We could fix this issue by allowing some headers on the Message. The
> > DataBinding interceptor can then use one header to pass a flag down so
> > that
> > the Pass-By-Value invoker can skip the copy.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Raymond
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "tuscany-dev" <[email protected] >
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:27 AM
> > Subject: Avoiding unnecessary pass-by-value copies
> >
> >
> > > I'm looking at what we could do for TUSCANY-1559 which is about
> > > unnecessary
> > > pass-by-value copies causing failures when arguments aren't
> > serializable.
> > > The problem is on line 260 of JavaComponentContextProvider where it
> > tries
> > > to
> > > determine if the pass-by-value invoker is required, but it doesn't
> > take
> > > into
> > > account whats at the other end of the invocation chain.
> > >
> > > How about changing this so its not the Java implementation types
> > > responsibility to handle pass-by-value and move it out into core,
> > having a
> > > separate RuntimeWireProcessor and Interceptor for pass-by-value
> > support,
> > > and
> > > don't do copies if the source and target interfaces use different
> > > databindings?
> > >
> > >   ...ant
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to