Unless I'm missing it the current code doesn't use it, which is why I'm asking about it. Its no big deal though, I was just wondering in passing if we should clean this up.
...ant On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Raymond Feng <enjoyj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Even with the current code, the binding sca in-vm invoker is checking the > allowsPassByReference flag to decide if "pass-by-reference" should be used. > In the in-vm optimization with remotable interfaces, the reference side > invocation chain is connected to the service side invocation chain. Invokers > on each chain can allow pass by reference, especially the Java > implementation invoker at the end of the service invocation chain. > > To the bare minumum, we need a way to find out if the implementation allows > pass-by-reference for a given operation. > > Thanks, > Raymond > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "ant elder" <antel...@apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 8:13 PM > To: <dev@tuscany.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Do we need the DataExchangeSemantics interface anymore? > >> I understand that _was_ the idea but now that we've changed how the >> local sca binding works there is nothing that is actually using this >> anymore is there? >> >> ...ant >> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Raymond Feng <enjoyj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The idea was to allow interceptors (or invokers) in the invocation chain >>> to >>> tell Tuscany runtime if passByReference is allowed. For example, the Java >>> Invoker will return true if the target operation in the implementation >>> class >>> has @AllowsPassByReference. If one of the interceptors will copy data >>> (for >>> example, as part of data transformation), then there is no need for >>> Invoker >>> to do it again. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Raymond >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "ant elder" <ant.el...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:34 PM >>> To: <dev@tuscany.apache.org> >>> Subject: Do we need the DataExchangeSemantics interface anymore? >>> >>>> Do we need the DataExchangeSemantics interface still after all the >>>> binding sca and pass by value copy fixes? AFAICT nothing needs it now >>>> and we have no tests or usecases or anything using it so is there any >>>> reason to keep it? >>>> >>>> ...ant >>> >>> >
