> Ah right, I see. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't have a quick answer to this > other than stepping through each part of the infrastructure and > setting out what adding multiple return types implies. > > Simon
So if we look at my earlier example, mapping return value(s) for binding.jms wf.jmsObject to an ObjectMessage, I think it would be reasonable to continue setting a "single" return value directly into the ObjectMessage and also now, for multiple out/inouts, to set the entire array of out values into the ObjectMessage. We just don't want a single return value getting wrapped in an array and set into the ObjectMessage. That suggests we could make this change in such a way that it's not the bindings' job to worry about this new distinction, but Brent probably has a better idea of where to make this change. I just wanted to point out the dependency, though I realize I didn't add much to the solution here.
