Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
To improve the Tuscany databinding framework for simplicity and
flexibility, I come out a list of potential TODOs. Your
feedback/ideas/help will be very welcome.
That's a nice list, I marked the items I feel really important with +1
and some comments.
* Refine/simplify the databinding SPIs (for better extensibility and
consumeablity)
+1 to simplify and crisp-up some of the concepts and the interfaces that
represent them, for example IIRC a databinding can have an id, a name,
an alias, I'd suggest to just have an id :)
* Make the databinding framework easy to use as a utility in addtion to
an interceptor (Ideally, other projects can leverage this framework
without pulling into the whole tuscany runtime. I think we are very close.)
+1 I remember I needed that in the ATOM binding. Other bindings could
leverage that too.
* Use MIME types to model the databinding ids (for example,
application/xml, application/x-java-serialized-object, image/jpeg)
* Support MIME based binary data types (incuding the xmime extensions in
WSDL/XSD)
* Improve the performance of key transformers (such as JAXB <--> AXIOM,
we could reuse some JAXB code from Axis2 JAXWS support)
+1 that's really really important. I can summarize the most annoying
problems I've seen with SOA runtimes the last few years as follows:
- I have this big giant XSD that my developers dreamed up and when I try
to use it and XML instances of it the whole JVM blows up
- Looks like my business object is copied and converted between XML and
8 different forms of Java databindings approx. 37 times per transaction,
is there any way to improve that? :)
* Better support for collective/aggregate data types such as
java.util.Collection
+1 and also I'd add support for Java Generics as that's becoming a
common way of parameterizing generic business interface patterns.
* Support annotations of a java type (for example, an InputStream can be
used to contain different formats of data) to further constrain the data
type (We could use the JAXB annotation for this purpose)
* Find better ways to represent the databinding requirements for
bindings which weakly-typed message structure (no well-defined wire
format) such as JMS Message or JCA Record
For that one, can you say a bit more about the scenario and the issues
with the current databinding framework?
* More and better documents
Thanks,
Raymond
--
Jean-Sebastien
