Simon Laws wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Simon Nash <n...@apache.org
<mailto:n...@apache.org>> wrote:
Simon Laws wrote:
Around line 155 of DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor there is the code
// assume pass-by-values copies are required if
interfaces are remotable and there is no data binding
// transformation, i.e. a transformation will
result in a copy so another pass-by-value copy is unnecessary
if (!isOnMessage(targetOperation) &&
isRemotable(chain, sourceOperation, targetOperation)) {
interceptor =
new PassByValueInterceptor(dataBindings,
faultExceptionMapper, chain, targetOperation);
}
We should only be doing this if binding.sca is being used.
TUSCANY-2586 records this problem but there seems to be some
question as to the solution. Why can't we check here what type
of binding is being used? Iassuming that that approach was
discounted.
Simon
>
It isn't safe to assume that all bindings other than binding.sca
force copies to be made. A user could write binding.foo that
works similarly to binding.sca in that it doesn't do copies on
local invocations.
The solution proposed in the discussion of TUSCANY-2586 solves
this problem by making every binding responsible for deciding
whether the copying needs to be done.
Simon
Ok, good point. My thought was also rubbish as binding.sca doesn't
always need the PBV interceptor:-(
So we need a new binding operation to ask the question whether a copy is
required. In the binding.sca case it needs to take account of whether
it's operating in local or remote mode.
Simon
>
It's already possible for bindings to add an interceptor to the
chain. If the binding needs a copy, it can add the interceptor.
The binding might also need to consult the provider implementation
to see if @AllowsPassByReference is set.
Simon
