So in the absence of a spec, the conventions we use in the various wireFormats are like working specs. I just wanted to capture this in some sort of documentation.
For example, for wireFormat.jmsObject we've decided in the code to: * map input parameters to an Object[] * map outputs to a single Object (not an Object[]) This reflects an interface.java view that fits right along with a Java-centric format like this one. ---- On the subject of wireFormat.jmsObject, I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on the idea of adding similar support as the JMS default wireformat for passing through un-transformed a jms Message to an operation taking a single Message as parameter? On the one hand, it's clearly not necessary... the default wireFormat should be sufficient. I was just wondering if it's more user-friendly to be liberal in supporting this over various wireFormats as opposed to having more clearly-distinguished behavior among them. ---- (It also might be interesting to consider & work through what we would do if we supported an interface.wsdl with multiple outputs, but I'm getting ahead of myself now). I was thinking of maybe adding some sections here to describe this: *http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Databinding+Scope* Or would anyone suggest a better place? Thanks,Scott