Hi Simon,
I'm currently studying things for a major enhancement on the comet binding
and helping out with the samples when finding time. It's fine if you
estimate completing fixes on the json databinding this or the next week. Let
me know when you're done and I'll proceed with improving the sample
I think the current state is that although the binding.http has the
start of some support for this the tuscany-binding-jsonp-runtime still
works and will take prcidence if that jar is included. So for the time
being i think it should all be fine just using binding.jsonp and
binding-jsonp-runtime (S
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Florian MOGA wrote:
> I've seen Simon started fixing things on the json databinding and I would
> like to update the jsonp sample as well to also use arrays and BigDecimal.
> Are we keeping the current format for the scdl or switch to the wire
> declaration? I can
I've seen Simon started fixing things on the json databinding and I would
like to update the jsonp sample as well to also use arrays and BigDecimal.
Are we keeping the current format for the scdl or switch to the wire
declaration? I can't estimate how much such a change would take but if it
needs s
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:06 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:21 PM, ant elder wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think there is a single correct answer for how to arrange all
>> that. There is a good chance that the user that wanted
>> wireformat.jsonrpc instead of binding.jsonrpc will want t
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:21 PM, ant elder wrote:
>
> I don't think there is a single correct answer for how to arrange all
> that. There is a good chance that the user that wanted
> wireformat.jsonrpc instead of binding.jsonrpc will want the same in
> 2.x. Conversely, it is simpler to type with
Ok, it doesn't seem to affect the build so I checked the simple fix in
at revision: 992281. Obviously Raymond feel free to amend if you see
more to do.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
It looks good on the surface. I'll take a look later in more details.
Thanks,
Raymond
Raymond Feng
rf...@apache.org
Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinac
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:38 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>> Mmm, it looks like its a problem with the json data binding not being
>>> able to convert an int response value into a json string.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> Mmm, it looks like its a problem with the json data binding not being
>> able to convert an int response value into a json string.
>>
>
> It looks like we might be missing two things in
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Mmm, it looks like its a problem with the json data binding not being
> able to convert an int response value into a json string.
>
It looks like we might be missing two things in the JSON databinding :
- A SimpleType transformer (e.g SimpleTy
Mmm, it looks like its a problem with the json data binding not being
able to convert an int response value into a json string.
...ant
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Florian MOGA wrote:
> Thanks Ant. Line 45 is self-explanatory. That's what I was referring to as
> in the previous version of
Thanks Ant. Line 45 is self-explanatory. That's what I was referring to as
in the previous version of the binding only the instance variables were
initialized with the objects coming from the framework. This wouldn't have
brought any differences from the target contract. Didn't expect for changes
i
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:51 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>> If you really want to have all this is in just a single binding then
>> why not call it binding.http? Merging this function into binding.rest
>> makes no sense at all. REST is not RP
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Florian MOGA wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> Thanks for pointing where can I find more info. I've taken a look at
> the DatabindingRuntimeWireProcessor and the only thing I'm trying to clarify
> is how tuscany finds out that a String array is actually hiding behind the
> Obj
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Florian MOGA wrote:
> Hi Ant,
> It seems I've missed Simon's commit and didn't update jsonp binding sources
> at the time I was checking them out... That was the problem I wanted to
> bring up. I've checked up the new getJSONRequestStringArray() method and
> I've s
Hi Simon,
Thanks for pointing where can I find more info. I've taken a look at
the DatabindingRuntimeWireProcessor
and the only thing I'm trying to clarify is how tuscany finds out that a
String array is actually hiding behind the Object[] argument when invoking
the wire and decides to use JSON (e
Hi Florian
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Florian MOGA wrote:
> Hi Ant,
> It seems I've missed Simon's commit and didn't update jsonp binding sources
> at the time I was checking them out... That was the problem I wanted to
> bring up. I've checked up the new getJSONRequestStringArray() method
Hi Ant,
It seems I've missed Simon's commit and didn't update jsonp binding sources
at the time I was checking them out... That was the problem I wanted to
bring up. I've checked up the new getJSONRequestStringArray() method and
I've spotted that the typesIndex is never incrementing... Can't estim
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:51 PM, ant elder wrote:
>
> If you really want to have all this is in just a single binding then
> why not call it binding.http? Merging this function into binding.rest
> makes no sense at all. REST is not RPC.
>
> ...ant
>
I would like to have one binding, independen
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:50 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>> IMO, using HTTP/GET to access the RPC style services is just a poor-man's
>>> web service. Don't go deeper to support complex t
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:50 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>> IMO, using HTTP/GET to access the RPC style services is just a poor-man's
>> web service. Don't go deeper to support complex types, don't try to support
>> POST, because that will reinvent
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Florian MOGA wrote:
> The thing is, the JSONP binding
> can't handle any other types other than String... not even primitives like
> int. This means services exposed through jsonp should all have String
> parameters... If i'm not wrong with the above statement, t
I was going to open up a separate topic for this but I think at this point
of discussion, this might be a good place to bring it up. For the comet
binding i used the jsonp binding as an example. I was passing parameters for
the service as a JSON array and had the surprise that converting JSON array
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> IMO, using HTTP/GET to access the RPC style services is just a poor-man's
> web service. Don't go deeper to support complex types, don't try to support
> POST, because that will reinvent the wheels that either WS-*, REST, or
> JSONRPC already
IMO, using HTTP/GET to access the RPC style services is just a poor-man's web
service. Don't go deeper to support complex types, don't try to support POST,
because that will reinvent the wheels that either WS-*, REST, or JSONRPC
already handles.
If you don't like the JAX-RS annotations to provi
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Luciano Resende
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:34 PM, ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Luciano Resende
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Luciano Resende
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:34 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Luciano Resende
>>> wrote:
>>>
But, stepping back,
>>>
>>> Ok lets do that, so we've go
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:34 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Luciano Resende
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But, stepping back,
>>
>> Ok lets do that, so we've got the composite at
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:34 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
>> But, stepping back,
>
> Ok lets do that, so we've got the composite at
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/contrib/samples/hema/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.composit
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> But, stepping back,
Ok lets do that, so we've got the composite at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/contrib/samples/hema/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.composite
with component service HelloworldComponent/HelloworldServi
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> 2) The other perspective is that SCA doesn't want to reinvent all the
> wheels. IMO, using JAX-WS, JAX-RS annotations to provide the mapping in java
> for the certain metadata is beneficial to SCA.
Its fine for things like jaxws annotations
1) I have a set of slides describing the RESTfult services using Tuscany SCA. I
can share it.
2) The other perspective is that SCA doesn't want to reinvent all the wheels.
IMO, using JAX-WS, JAX-RS annotations to provide the mapping in java for the
certain metadata is beneficial to SCA.
Thanks
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:44 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Can you say a bit about what you're thinking of for "support for
> declaratively add the mapping"?
>
In summary, adding some of these configurations via composite file
(e.g http operation mapping, etc)
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luciano Resende
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd try:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd try:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This would then be accessible via URL
>>
>> ?method=&p
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
> I'd try:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This would then be accessible via URL
>
> ?method=&parm1=&parm2=
>
I've tried that and still get the IllegalArgumentExc
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:05 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> Is binding.rest supposed to work with arbitrary services that don't
>> have any jaxrs annotations? And if so how do you configure it to do
>> that?
>>
>
> The REST Binding is a superset
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:05 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Is binding.rest supposed to work with arbitrary services that don't
> have any jaxrs annotations? And if so how do you configure it to do
> that?
>
The REST Binding is a superset of the HTTP Binding, so other then the
regular support for Collec
Is binding.rest supposed to work with arbitrary services that don't
have any jaxrs annotations? And if so how do you configure it to do
that?
I'm trying it with the sample at:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/contrib/samples/hema/
The service interface is:
@Remotable
public
40 matches
Mail list logo
