Hi Simon,
2. The extensions avaialble do not have a consistent form, which is the
most
appropriate model to follow? (cpp, ws, rest?)
I'm not sure but the cpp and ws have been around the longest. In what
way do you see that they are inconsistent?
[Shiva] Mostly in the way the code is arranged for extending the
services. I am still trying to understand how the code is arranged to
add an extension.
For example, [Correct me if I am wrong]
runtime/extensions/cpp/src/osoa
Contains code for CPP runtime.
runtime/extensions/cpp/src/tuscany
Contains runtime support for shared object implementations [local
services]. Has code under tuscany/sca/cpp/ and tuscany/sca/cpp/model
runtime/extensions/ws
Contains reference and service
runtime/extensions/rest
Contains interface, reference and service
What would be the process in adding an cpp extension that would support
a shared_memory transport with a binary serialization protocol. lets say
TLV format for the sake of discussion.
Where would the implementation reside? runtime/extensions/shared_memory?
3. Customization of the serialization libary? How is this configured?
Do you mean libxml used by SDO?
Yes. I would to see if I can pluging DAS for Binary protocol or some
custom requirement.
