Hi Raymond,
I think I ended up confusing everybody with that... here are some
clarifications I wish to make.
- I am in no way recommending ASM here. I only mentioned that the 'style'
of representing parameter types and return type for a method is something
that I have borrowed from ASM
- what I
SynchronousBridgingInterceptor seems to be catching NPE
---
Key: TUSCANY-768
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-768
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Bug
Components:
Ok, I took a look. Fixing CompositeReference to not be interface/method
centric is not a big deal. However CompositeReferenceTargetInvoker and
CompositeReferenceCallbackTargetInvoker are defined in terms of
PojoTargetInvoker which itself is interface/method centric. Given the
current
Some more thoughts on this.
The specs (assembly and CI) do not seem to be very explicit about what
should happen with an interface that is annotated as @Callback and that
defines more than one method. But notice that if this is the case then the
next question pertains to a previous question,
Yeah, actually, for components that are directly wired this is not really a
problem. But for a component that is invoked remotely via a binding, this is
a problem for the current architecture. In particular, without a more or
less explicit association of callback methods, it does not seem to be
On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:10 AM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
Ok, I took a look. Fixing CompositeReference to not be interface/
method centric is not a big deal. However
CompositeReferenceTargetInvoker and
CompositeReferenceCallbackTargetInvoker are defined in terms of
PojoTargetInvoker which
I thought we were going to change the composite target invokers to be
like interceptors that when they were invoked would flip the
message from the composite reference inbound/outbound pair to the
target service's inbound/outbound chain? I also was thinking the
invokers should not inherit
Ok, yes, let me take that back. Can I claim lack of caffeine? ...
A CompositeReferenceTargetInvoker, and certainly a bound reference target
invoker (e.g., Axis2TargetInvoker) needs to be able to handle interface.xxx
(java, wsdl, etc).
The idea with CompositeReference was to reuse the existing
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-769?page=all ]
Luciano Resende updated TUSCANY-769:
Attachment: tuscany769.lresende.20060930.txt
updated das and das-samples distribution assemblies files
Improve DAS distribution to include any
On Sep 30, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
Ok, yes, let me take that back. Can I claim lack of caffeine? ...
Sure I do it all the time ;-)
A CompositeReferenceTargetInvoker, and certainly a bound reference
target invoker (e.g., Axis2TargetInvoker) needs to be able to
handle
If we are going to start releasing these separately (or really just
being prepared to) then I think this would be worth doing. It's a
fairly simple change to do even now so should we do this for this
release?
Speaking of which, it looks like EMF 2.2.1 is available from their
maven repo.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-761?page=comments#action_12438946
]
Yang ZHONG commented on TUSCANY-761:
Is anyone working on this? If no, I can give a try.
Support the ability to unregister all the SDO Types in a namespace
Hi All
I have DAS M2 RC1 ready, and would like to see where I can post it for
review ?
How would I go about posting it for review ? Any commiter willing to help
post this to a accessible place, maybe in sandbox or some place more
appropriated ? Is Wiki attachment a reasonable place ?
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
