On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Scott Kurz wrote:
> I'm not suggesting generating one from WSDL yet, until we understand
> the use case(s) we'd need this in more detail. It might be nice to
> throw an error if a Java interface is unavailable however.
>
> Obviously we have a lot of bindings toda
I'm not suggesting generating one from WSDL yet, until we understand
the use case(s) we'd need this in more detail.It might be nice to
throw an error if a Java interface is unavailable however.
Obviously we have a lot of bindings today and people have figured out
the trick... just seemed nicer
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Scott Kurz wrote:
> Picking this thread up again, I wonder if a starting point might be to
> define a new SPI that a binding could use to obtain a Java
> InterfaceContract in the cases where we expect/require the
> componentType IC to be Java.
>
> E.g. in
> org.apa
Picking this thread up again, I wonder if a starting point might be to
define a new SPI that a binding could use to obtain a Java
InterfaceContract in the cases where we expect/require the
componentType IC to be Java.
E.g. in
org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.jms.wireformat.jmsobject.runtime.WireFor
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Scott Kurz wrote:
> Thanks Simon,
>
> So we already support the mirror image case today where we need a WSDL
> intf for the binding but have only a Java intf in the component; we
> generate a WSDL if necessary.
>
> So for the wf.jmsObject plus impl.bpel case, I su
Thanks Simon,
So we already support the mirror image case today where we need a WSDL
intf for the binding but have only a Java intf in the component; we
generate a WSDL if necessary.
So for the wf.jmsObject plus impl.bpel case, I suppose we could just
generate Java as well.
So each binding requ
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Scott Kurz wrote:
>> I was just noticing that in the WireFormatJMSObjectServiceProvider ctor, we
>> do:
>>
>> // just point to the reference interface contract so no
>> // databinding transformat
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Scott Kurz wrote:
> I was just noticing that in the WireFormatJMSObjectServiceProvider ctor, we
> do:
>
> // just point to the reference interface contract so no
> // databinding transformation takes place
> interfaceContract = service.getInte
I was just noticing that in the WireFormatJMSObjectServiceProvider ctor, we do:
// just point to the reference interface contract so no
// databinding transformation takes place
interfaceContract = service.getInterfaceContract();
So, with an componentType, this is fine as
