Re: Databinding mediation between part-based and doc-wrapped operations

2011-01-28 Thread Raymond Feng
First, I agree that we could use a better name for the first flag, for example: unwrapped or subjectToWrapping true: the parameters are child elements of the wrapper (doc-lit-wrapper or RPC wrapper) false: the parameter is already a wrapper element ((doc-lit-wrapper or RPC wrappe

Re: Databinding mediation between part-based and doc-wrapped operations

2011-01-28 Thread Scott Kurz
Raymond, Ah..thanks for the clarification...I think I see what you're saying. I like the fact that you've reduced the number of flags directly involved in the transform from three to one. I think your organization would require some extra knowledge in something like Input2Input to track which si

Re: Databinding mediation between part-based and doc-wrapped operations

2011-01-28 Thread Raymond Feng
The flag a should be true for the BARE style. For the Java method (generated from WSDL or annotated with JAX-WS), the parameters are child elements by default. Only when the BARE is present for the doc-lit-wrapper style WSDL, the payload is a wrapper. For plain doc-lit WSDL case, it should be a

Re: Databinding mediation between part-based and doc-wrapped operations

2011-01-28 Thread Scott Kurz
Raymond, Thanks for writing that up in such detail to move the discussion forward. Before I respond.. I got a bit lost when you said: > 2 When we introspect the Java interface (maybe with JAX-WS annotations), we > can set the flag > > a) is set true only if the @SOAPBinding.parameterStyle == Pa

Re: Databinding mediation between part-based and doc-wrapped operations

2011-01-28 Thread Raymond Feng
Hi, Sorry for not replying promptly. I agree the terms are pretty confusing. We can probably simplify them as follows: 1) We need to have two flags for a given operation that has corresponding WSDL: a) dataWrapped: If the payload for the method signature is either already wrapped b) wrapperR

RE: An issue with PolicyHandler extension framework - a bug or design flaw? (UNCLASSIFIED)

2011-01-28 Thread Yang, Gang CTR US USA
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Hi, Simon, I have created the JIRA, TUSCANY-3822 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3822), and included the two classes that I changed in order to access the outbound MessageContext in afterInvoke(). I've also successfully integrated our

[jira] Resolved: (TUSCANY-3819) Multiple problems with multiple outputs (Holder support)

2011-01-28 Thread Scott Kurz (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3819?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Scott Kurz resolved TUSCANY-3819. - Resolution: Fixed > Multiple problems with multiple outputs (Holder support) >

[jira] Closed: (TUSCANY-3819) Multiple problems with multiple outputs (Holder support)

2011-01-28 Thread Scott Kurz (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3819?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Scott Kurz closed TUSCANY-3819. --- > Multiple problems with multiple outputs (Holder support) > --

Re: Reduce default logging output in 2.x

2011-01-28 Thread Simon Nash
Simon Laws wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM, ant elder wrote: On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Simon Laws wrote: I'd like to reduce the amount of log output we get by default by, for example, changing the endpoint registration to be fine rather than info. Anyone have any concerns about

Re: Reduce default logging output in 2.x

2011-01-28 Thread ant elder
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Simon Laws wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM, ant elder wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Simon Laws >> wrote: >>> I'd like to reduce the amount of log output we get by default by, for >>> example, changing the endpoint registration to be fine r

Re: Reduce default logging output in 2.x

2011-01-28 Thread Simon Laws
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM, ant elder wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Simon Laws wrote: >> I'd like to reduce the amount of log output we get by default by, for >> example, changing the endpoint registration to be fine rather than >> info. Anyone have any concerns about me doing t

Re: [VOTE] Release Tuscany SCA 2.0 Beta2

2011-01-28 Thread ant elder
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Mike Edwards wrote: > On 23/01/2011 23:56, ant elder wrote: >> >> Please review and vote on RC1 of the Java SCA 2.0 Beta2 release. >> >> The artifacts are at: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/2.0-beta2-RC1/ >> >> The release tag is at: >> >> http:/