Thanks. I unfortunately did not relate the POJO aspect correctly - but thanks for the pointers.
monosij On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Simon Nash <[email protected]> wrote: > Monosij Dutta-Roy wrote: > >> hi Simon (Laws) - >> You are welcome. I have learnt a lot in this process. Its a great >> framework. And I would be happy to help with summarizing as concisely as >> possible into a wiki. If you all indicate a thread that needs to be >> summarized I can move it to a GoogleDoc or such to share it, refine it with >> you all and then post to the wiki. Of course the GoogleDoc can still be >> linked with examples and such. >> >> You could start by adding your recent post (with corrections as > appropriate) to the wiki. Once it is there, others can update it as they > feel necessary. > > > I plan to work with SDO / DAS so can help there as well. Maybe we can try >> and move towards some Pitfalls / Best Practices with key inter-operable >> frameworks such as DAS / JDBC / REST / EJB and such. I will try and keep it >> as simple and concise as possible. >> >> Sounds good. > > > You all have a lot of topics in your book to begin with - and maybe some >> elements could be summarized, re-referenced and referred back to the book >> pages for reference? >> > It's a bit trickier to bring the book into this, because not everyone > who reads the wiki will have a copy of the book. > > > I can try to address the variability issues that SCA addresses - staring >> with Languages (CPP, Java,...) and move into the other dimensions. Hopefully >> will start to use the right terminologies. >> ---------- >> hi Simon (Nash) - >> Thanks for the updates and clarifications and your help through this. Now >> based on your comments below - have a few more to add. >> >> 1. I understand the distinction between service and object and will try to >> refer to it accordingly from now. >> >> 2. Regarding returning as a POJO (ArrayList) vs encapsulated in object as >> QueryResponse (which has the ArrayList) - you say is fine. Good - but when >> moving to ws.binding and using JAXB datatypes - will that still work? >> Meaning if I return JAXB datatypes encapsulated in QueryResponse - will that >> work or would I have to return PO JAXB O? Maybe should come with an acronym >> here - POXO? Plain Old XML Objects? :-) >> >> You're right that all Java objects passed across binding.ws need to > support > the JAXB mapping from Java to XML. > > > 3. Reference vs Wire - Thanks for the explanation. Just wanted to mention >> that I like the aspect of <wire> being outside the <component> definition. >> Reason, to me, is - as an app gets more complex and assuming multi-domain - >> it would be good to see all linkage <wires>, <references> - in one place. >> <reference> does not allow that to happen as it is always withing a >> <component> definition. <wire> does but then limited by single-domain. >> It would be good if <wire> (or some other similar) could do that too as - >> as a developer could just go to the <wire> section and see what has been >> setup - and not have to go through the <component> definitions. Hope its a >> valid statement as I have not done a large scale SCA impl yet. But already I >> feel I want to quickly see what is connected and deciphering <references> in >> each <component> section becomes tedious. But that's just me, so its a >> suggestion. >> >> I think it's an interesting idea to extend the SCA definition of <wire> > to do as you are suggesting. To make it happen, someone would need to > propose it to the OASIS SCA Assembly Technical Committee for the members > of that committee to consider and decide. > > Simon > > Great! Thanks again and look forward to contributing. >> >> monosij >> >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Simon Nash <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Simon Laws wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Millies, Sebastian >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Monosij, >> >> >> >> thank you for that very helpful post. >> >> >> >> Is anyone still using the Tuscany Wiki? There isn’t much >> up-to-date stuff in >> it, >> >> but perhaps it would be worthwhile including information >> like this. >> >> >> >> What do people think – should one create a new top-level page >> >> “Using Tuscany: Tips and Pitfalls” or somesuch to collect >> posts like >> >> Monosij’s summary? >> >> >> >> n Sebastian >> >> >> >> >> +1 from me. We should probably take a look at the wiki generally >> and >> try and remove the cruft that has built up there. >> >> Simon >> >> +1 for adding information like this to the wiki. >> >> Simon >> >> >> >
