On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:06 AM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:21 PM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> I don't think there is a single correct answer for how to arrange all >> that. There is a good chance that the user that wanted >> wireformat.jsonrpc instead of binding.jsonrpc will want the same in >> 2.x. Conversely, it is simpler to type with individual bindings >> instead of wireFormats, eg: >> >> <binding.jsonp> >> >> instead of: >> >> <binding.http> >> <wireFormat.jsonp/> >> </binding.http> >> >> Perhaps we should just support all the different approaches? It does >> seem good if however we do it that there is minimal code duplication >> so perhaps we should look at arranging the code so we can easily >> support <binding.jsonp> scdl but that gets translated into a runtime >> config thats shares all the code of the equivalent of binding.http >> with wireFormat.jsonp. >> >> Comments? >> > > No comments so i went ahead and tried that with the jsonp binding. The > JSONPBinding class in its constructor configures an HTTPBinding [1] > and the binding-http-runtime does all the work now so > binding-jsonp-runtime is no longer needed. > > That looks good to me, and as function gets added to the http binding > (eg support for basic auth, gzip encoding, etc) the jsonp binding > could also pick that up. > > ...ant > > [1] > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/binding-jsonp/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/binding/jsonp/JSONPBinding.java >
Sounds like a plan. It's messing up the tests in the old binding-jsonp-runtime as there is some strange dependency on some of the http runtime artifacts. Can we just remove this from the build now? Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
