Simon Nash wrote:
This approach sounds good to me. I'd like to suggest one small
addition to the final "else" clause, based on the following spec quote:
Java SCA Annotations and APIs spec: 1531
Complex data types exchanged via remotable service interfaces must be
compatible with the marshalling technology used by the service binding.
If the binding uses XML serialization, then the proposed final "else"
will do the right thing. (For Tuscany, this includes the default
binding.sca.) However, if the binding uses some other serialization
such as JSON, then it might be more compatible to use this same
serialization in the local pass-by-value case. There are libraries
(e.g., [1]) that provide this functionality.
So the final "else" would become:
else // if we have a simple JavaBean and an XML binding
symbol is copied using JAXB XML serialization
else
else // if we have a simple JavaBean and a JSON binding
symbol is copied using JSON serialization
else
// I'm not going to list all possible bindings but you get
// the picture...
Thoughts?
Simon
[1] http://json-lib.sourceforge.net/usage.html
I agree that we need to take JSON into account (that was my next thought
too I just didn't want to pile too many aspects in this discussion).
I think it would be useful to put a table together comparing the JSON
mapping and the JAXB mapping. Wouldn't it be nice if we could tell
application developers "if you use these patterns and types, your
business object will work unchanged with XML and JSON"?
Concrete use case in hand, the store scenario flows the Item bean over
XML, JSON and in-VM pass-by-value interactions. I'd hate to have to
write 3 different Item beans and mediation code to cover these 3 cases.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
