Ok thanks, i'll go explore that for a little while...probably I'll be having more questions while doing that :)
...ant On Dec 14, 2007 7:20 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, creating the WrapperInfo manually is an alternative to generating a > wrapper style WSDL (in which case the WSDL interface introspection > produces > the WrapperInfo). > > Thanks, > Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "tuscany-dev" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:09 AM > Subject: Re: How to set a specific data binding to be used by a binding? > > > > Ok, so from "unless the binding interface contract is a wrapper style > WSDL > > portType" does that mean it really must have a WSDL portType and thats > > baked > > deep into the design or is it more "unless the binding interface > contract > > is > > a wrapper style" and it would be possible to just set that up with a > Java > > interface? Something like setting a WrapperInfo with > > o.a.t.s.interfacedef.Operation.setWrapper? Which I guess is assuming its > > straightforward to create a WrapperInfo object? > > > > ...ant > > > > On Dec 14, 2007 5:39 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I just use JMS as an example for bindings that are not naturally > >> RPC-style. > >> > >> Using AXIOM as the databinding will only give you an array of > OMElements > >> representing the parameters unless the binding interface contract is a > >> wrapper style WSDL portType (then you'll receive the wrapper > OMElement). > >> We > >> can enhance the XMLStringDataBinding to handle wrappers but we still > need > >> to > >> express that the binding interface contract is wrapper style in the > first > >> place. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Raymond > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> *From:* ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> *To:* Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> *Cc:* [email protected] > >> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2007 9:12 AM > >> *Subject:* Re: How to set a specific data binding to be used by a > >> binding? > >> > >> I'm completely missing the point sorry and I'm not sure I understand > why > >> JMS comes into this? I've a binding and I want the wrapped XML. I want > it > >> as > >> a String but I could use DOM or OMElement or what ever else. Right now > I > >> (think?) it would work if I just use the Axiom data binding which gives > >> the > >> wrapped style of XML and then I'd receive OMElements as the payload > which > >> I > >> could call toString on to get a String, but I'd prefer not to have the > >> dependency on Axiom. > >> > >> I still don't understand why there couldn't be a version of > >> XMLStringDataBinding that returns wrapped style XML? > >> > >> ...ant > >> > >> On Dec 14, 2007 4:55 PM, Raymond Feng < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > There are two independent factors in the operation-level data > >> > transformation > >> > (i.e., converting the payload from one structure to another). In the > >> > JMSBinding case, if a java interface is used, it's from Object[] to > >> > JMSMessage (or the text for JMS TextMessage). > >> > > >> > 1) The data conversion (from example, a Customer SDO to String) > >> > 2) The wrapping/unwrapping process. Wrapper style is just a special > >> > pattern > >> > for PRC-style payload to messge-style. Other mapping can be used too, > >> > for > >> > example, you can create a JMS MapMessage and set the arguments into > the > >> > Map. > >> > > >> > Since there are two separate concerns, we don't want to have > >> > XMLStringDataBinding to support this combination only. > >> > > >> > Looking at operation-level, we have two high-level transformers > >> > (idl:input > >> > <--> idl:input and idl:output <--> idl:output) to deal with payload > >> > transformation. The transformers handle wrapping/unwrapping and then > >> > delegate to parameter-level transformers. If the JMS binding wants to > >> > control how to package the input/output payload, you can register > >> > special > >> > transformers (idl:iput --> jms:input, jms:input --> idl:input, > >> > idl:output --> jms:output and jms:output --> idl:ouput). Then in > your > >> > transformers, you can wrap/unwrap the XML elements. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Raymond > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > To: < [email protected]> > >> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 3:01 AM > >> > Subject: Re: How to set a specific data binding to be used by a > >> > binding? > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Dec 13, 2007 10:36 PM, ant elder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Dec 13, 2007 7:22 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> > >> > >> Anthoer way you could do is to set the databinding to DOM or > AXIOM. > >> > The > >> > >> > databinding interceptor will pass you an array of elements > >> > >> > corresponding > >> > >> > to > >> > >> > the java arguments. You can then create the wrapper from the > >> > >> > child > >> > >> > args > >> > >> > > >> > >> > when it reaches the JMS binding code. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> If its possible to fix this like that (by manually adding a > wrapper > >> > >> element) then would another way be to have a new data binding that > >> > does > >> > >> this > >> > >> and use that in the binding. Something like a > >> > >> WrappedXMLStringDataBinding.NAME which is just like the > >> > >> XMLStringDataBinding.NAME but is implemented to use DOM and > manually > >> > >> create a wrapper around the child args? (asking to confirm I'm > >> > >> understanding > >> > >> what you're suggesting) If thats possible it seems like it would > be > >> > >> a > >> > >> cleaner approach for binding or implementation type writers. > >> > >> > >> > >> If we can do that i'd also use it for implementation.script which > >> > needs > >> > >> similar functionality. > >> > >> > >> > >> ...ant > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > No replies yet so I had a quick look at doing this... > >> > > > >> > > Ideally the WrappedXMLStringDataBinding would be just the same as > the > >> > > existing XMLStringDataBinding but that doesn't look like it would > >> > > work > >> > - > >> > > is > >> > > it possible to have multiple databindings coexisting using the same > >> > > physical > >> > > type? > >> > > > >> > > So a question from earlier again: Why is XMLStringDataBinding > >> > producing > >> > > unwrapped XML? All the uses for this that I have would use wrapped > >> > style > >> > > xml > >> > > so having XMLStringDataBinding produce that would be more > convenient. > >> > > > >> > > ...ant > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
