Re: JSONRPC Enhancements
I managed to get the scaDomain working for the JSON-RPC again. I have also updated the helloworld-jsonrpc-webapp to use that, instead of a local json.js proxy. On 10/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had a quick look and i think should be possible to support both > approaches, i'll go give it a try. Once the sca.js approach is working and > the old scaDomain.js is used we could log a warning message saying its > scaDomain.js is deprecated. > >...ant > > On 10/25/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OK, this member of the community will bite :-) > > > > Now that we have released 1.0, we should not break compatibility with > > user applications or user extensions without a very good reason. > > We should always try to deprecate previously supported APIs and keep > > them working rather than disabling them. Is there any way to > > keep the old applications using SCADomain.js running, while supporting > > and recommending the new approach using jsonrpc.js? > > > >Simon > > > > ant elder wrote: > > > > > On 10/22/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>The upgrade process is very harmless, two line of code, one for the js > > >>reference and another for the reference declaration. Also, seems like > > >>there are some bugs on the scaDomain.js [1] that would not happen > > >>while using the manual reference. I also think that, having the two > > >>very similar bindings will make confusion and other maintenance > > >>headaches. Have said that, and as I'm working towards getting the > > >>web2.0 References working soon, I'd like to keep this as one binding, > > >>but I'm open if the community feels otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't look like Mr Community is answering...Trying to maintain > > backward > > > compatibility where possible is important. It doesn't matter that its a > > > "harmless two line change", if some guy upgrades from Tuscany 1.0 to > > > 1.1and > > > his applications don't work any more then that is a bad user experience > > > which we should try hard to avoid. Is there a reason the scaDoamin.jscan't > > > work anymore? If there is a reason then a separate new binding seems > > better > > > to me just so we can avoid breaking anyone. > > > > > >...ant > > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSONRPC Enhancements
I've had a quick look and i think should be possible to support both approaches, i'll go give it a try. Once the sca.js approach is working and the old scaDomain.js is used we could log a warning message saying its scaDomain.js is deprecated. ...ant On 10/25/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, this member of the community will bite :-) > > Now that we have released 1.0, we should not break compatibility with > user applications or user extensions without a very good reason. > We should always try to deprecate previously supported APIs and keep > them working rather than disabling them. Is there any way to > keep the old applications using SCADomain.js running, while supporting > and recommending the new approach using jsonrpc.js? > >Simon > > ant elder wrote: > > > On 10/22/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>The upgrade process is very harmless, two line of code, one for the js > >>reference and another for the reference declaration. Also, seems like > >>there are some bugs on the scaDomain.js [1] that would not happen > >>while using the manual reference. I also think that, having the two > >>very similar bindings will make confusion and other maintenance > >>headaches. Have said that, and as I'm working towards getting the > >>web2.0 References working soon, I'd like to keep this as one binding, > >>but I'm open if the community feels otherwise. > > > > > > > > Doesn't look like Mr Community is answering...Trying to maintain > backward > > compatibility where possible is important. It doesn't matter that its a > > "harmless two line change", if some guy upgrades from Tuscany 1.0 to 1.1and > > his applications don't work any more then that is a bad user experience > > which we should try hard to avoid. Is there a reason the scaDoamin.jscan't > > work anymore? If there is a reason then a separate new binding seems > better > > to me just so we can avoid breaking anyone. > > > >...ant > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: JSONRPC Enhancements
OK, this member of the community will bite :-) Now that we have released 1.0, we should not break compatibility with user applications or user extensions without a very good reason. We should always try to deprecate previously supported APIs and keep them working rather than disabling them. Is there any way to keep the old applications using SCADomain.js running, while supporting and recommending the new approach using jsonrpc.js? Simon ant elder wrote: On 10/22/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The upgrade process is very harmless, two line of code, one for the js reference and another for the reference declaration. Also, seems like there are some bugs on the scaDomain.js [1] that would not happen while using the manual reference. I also think that, having the two very similar bindings will make confusion and other maintenance headaches. Have said that, and as I'm working towards getting the web2.0 References working soon, I'd like to keep this as one binding, but I'm open if the community feels otherwise. Doesn't look like Mr Community is answering...Trying to maintain backward compatibility where possible is important. It doesn't matter that its a "harmless two line change", if some guy upgrades from Tuscany 1.0 to 1.1 and his applications don't work any more then that is a bad user experience which we should try hard to avoid. Is there a reason the scaDoamin.js can't work anymore? If there is a reason then a separate new binding seems better to me just so we can avoid breaking anyone. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSONRPC Enhancements
On 10/22/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The upgrade process is very harmless, two line of code, one for the js > reference and another for the reference declaration. Also, seems like > there are some bugs on the scaDomain.js [1] that would not happen > while using the manual reference. I also think that, having the two > very similar bindings will make confusion and other maintenance > headaches. Have said that, and as I'm working towards getting the > web2.0 References working soon, I'd like to keep this as one binding, > but I'm open if the community feels otherwise. Doesn't look like Mr Community is answering...Trying to maintain backward compatibility where possible is important. It doesn't matter that its a "harmless two line change", if some guy upgrades from Tuscany 1.0 to 1.1 and his applications don't work any more then that is a bad user experience which we should try hard to avoid. Is there a reason the scaDoamin.js can't work anymore? If there is a reason then a separate new binding seems better to me just so we can avoid breaking anyone. ...ant
Re: JSONRPC Enhancements
The upgrade process is very harmless, two line of code, one for the js reference and another for the reference declaration. Also, seems like there are some bugs on the scaDomain.js [1] that would not happen while using the manual reference. I also think that, having the two very similar bindings will make confusion and other maintenance headaches. Have said that, and as I'm working towards getting the web2.0 References working soon, I'd like to keep this as one binding, but I'm open if the community feels otherwise. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1820 On 10/22/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about changing this to be a completely separate new binding? That way > we'll be able to keep backward compatibility - new users can use the new > extension but people already using binding.jsonrpc from the 1.0 release can > continue to use the old json-rpc-java based extension till they're ready to > upgrade. > >...ant > > On 10/22/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I have just committed some enhancements to JSONRPC binding. It should > > now be able to work with the Tuscany Databinding framework (I > > particulary tested with SDO). I have also added initial code to > > support References for the JSONRPC Binding, although this is not > > completely finished yet. > > > > Note that the current implementation still uses the JSONRPCBridge to > > handle "system.*" calls, and I was wondering if anyone have some > > references on this calls, and whether or not it's a must to support > > them. > > > > Support for SCADomain.js is disabled, as I'm starting to work on > > support for references on a web2.0 client application similar to what > > was discussed/proposed on this thread[1]. I have modified the > > helloworld-jsonrpc to use a local jsonrpc.js. > > > > Please, let me know if you guys see any problems. > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg23094.html > > > > On 10/10/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To the specific question, the store sample is shipping the JSONRPC > > > proxy probably because the SCADomain.js does not have support for > > > components with multiple services as reported in [1]. > > > > > > As for a more broad number of enhancements around JSONRPC, I have > > > started to add support for Databindings [2], References and working on > > > moving to support references on a web2.0 application similar to what > > > was discussed/proposed on this thread [3]. > > > > > > I should have some of this done early next week, after I fix couple > > > issues that I'm seeing in my local environment. > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1820 > > > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg24367.html > > > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg23094.html > > > > > > On 10/10/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 10/10/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "the proxy that is automatically generated" ? > > > > > > > > > > On 10/10/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Currently the store sample ships a JSONRPC proxy ( > > binding-jsonrpc.js) as > > > > > an > > > > > > alternative to the proxy that is automatically generated. Why is > > this > > > > > the > > > > > > case? > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Luciano Resende > > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > As in the proxy that is automatically generated and that you would > > find at > > > > > > > > > > > > http://yourhost:yourport/yourapp/SCADomain/scaDomain.js > > > > > > > > Am assuming here that this feature still works. > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Luciano Resende > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > -- > > Luciano Resende > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSONRPC Enhancements
How about changing this to be a completely separate new binding? That way we'll be able to keep backward compatibility - new users can use the new extension but people already using binding.jsonrpc from the 1.0 release can continue to use the old json-rpc-java based extension till they're ready to upgrade. ...ant On 10/22/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have just committed some enhancements to JSONRPC binding. It should > now be able to work with the Tuscany Databinding framework (I > particulary tested with SDO). I have also added initial code to > support References for the JSONRPC Binding, although this is not > completely finished yet. > > Note that the current implementation still uses the JSONRPCBridge to > handle "system.*" calls, and I was wondering if anyone have some > references on this calls, and whether or not it's a must to support > them. > > Support for SCADomain.js is disabled, as I'm starting to work on > support for references on a web2.0 client application similar to what > was discussed/proposed on this thread[1]. I have modified the > helloworld-jsonrpc to use a local jsonrpc.js. > > Please, let me know if you guys see any problems. > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg23094.html > > On 10/10/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To the specific question, the store sample is shipping the JSONRPC > > proxy probably because the SCADomain.js does not have support for > > components with multiple services as reported in [1]. > > > > As for a more broad number of enhancements around JSONRPC, I have > > started to add support for Databindings [2], References and working on > > moving to support references on a web2.0 application similar to what > > was discussed/proposed on this thread [3]. > > > > I should have some of this done early next week, after I fix couple > > issues that I'm seeing in my local environment. > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1820 > > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg24367.html > > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg23094.html > > > > On 10/10/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/10/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "the proxy that is automatically generated" ? > > > > > > > > On 10/10/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Currently the store sample ships a JSONRPC proxy ( > binding-jsonrpc.js) as > > > > an > > > > > alternative to the proxy that is automatically generated. Why is > this > > > > the > > > > > case? > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Luciano Resende > > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > As in the proxy that is automatically generated and that you would > find at > > > > > > > > > http://yourhost:yourport/yourapp/SCADomain/scaDomain.js > > > > > > Am assuming here that this feature still works. > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > -- > > Luciano Resende > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: JSONRPC Enhancements
I have just committed some enhancements to JSONRPC binding. It should now be able to work with the Tuscany Databinding framework (I particulary tested with SDO). I have also added initial code to support References for the JSONRPC Binding, although this is not completely finished yet. Note that the current implementation still uses the JSONRPCBridge to handle "system.*" calls, and I was wondering if anyone have some references on this calls, and whether or not it's a must to support them. Support for SCADomain.js is disabled, as I'm starting to work on support for references on a web2.0 client application similar to what was discussed/proposed on this thread[1]. I have modified the helloworld-jsonrpc to use a local jsonrpc.js. Please, let me know if you guys see any problems. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg23094.html On 10/10/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To the specific question, the store sample is shipping the JSONRPC > proxy probably because the SCADomain.js does not have support for > components with multiple services as reported in [1]. > > As for a more broad number of enhancements around JSONRPC, I have > started to add support for Databindings [2], References and working on > moving to support references on a web2.0 application similar to what > was discussed/proposed on this thread [3]. > > I should have some of this done early next week, after I fix couple > issues that I'm seeing in my local environment. > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1820 > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg24367.html > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg23094.html > > On 10/10/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/10/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > What do you mean by "the proxy that is automatically generated" ? > > > > > > On 10/10/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Currently the store sample ships a JSONRPC proxy (binding-jsonrpc.js) as > > > an > > > > alternative to the proxy that is automatically generated. Why is this > > > the > > > > case? > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Luciano Resende > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > As in the proxy that is automatically generated and that you would find at > > > > > > http://yourhost:yourport/yourapp/SCADomain/scaDomain.js > > > > Am assuming here that this feature still works. > > > > Simon > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JSONRPC Enhancements in progress, was: Re: Store sample JSONRPC proxy
On 10/10/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To the specific question, the store sample is shipping the JSONRPC > proxy probably because the SCADomain.js does not have support for > components with multiple services as reported in [1]. > > As for a more broad number of enhancements around JSONRPC, I have > started to add support for Databindings [2], References and working on > moving to support references on a web2.0 application similar to what > was discussed/proposed on this thread [3]. > > I should have some of this done early next week, after I fix couple > issues that I'm seeing in my local environment. > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1820 > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg24367.html > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg23094.html > > On 10/10/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/10/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > What do you mean by "the proxy that is automatically generated" ? > > > > > > On 10/10/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Currently the store sample ships a JSONRPC proxy (binding-jsonrpc.js) > as > > > an > > > > alternative to the proxy that is automatically generated. Why is > this > > > the > > > > case? > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Luciano Resende > > > Apache Tuscany Committer > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > As in the proxy that is automatically generated and that you would > find at > > > > > > http://yourhost:yourport/yourapp/SCADomain/scaDomain.js > > > > Am assuming here that this feature still works. > > > > Simon > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Luciano Sounds really good. Thanks for the summary. When the reference support is done I guess we can move the store sample back to using a generated proxy anyhow. Regards Simon
