Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I have checked in the first cut under
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=601501view=rev. With these changes, we
now use JAXB
]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Remotable interfaces and pass by value, was: Data
transformation from/to POJO
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Some answers after researching the spec docs:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think this issue needs
Simon Nash wrote:
This approach sounds good to me. I'd like to suggest one small
addition to the final else clause, based on the following spec quote:
Java SCA Annotations and APIs spec: 1531
Complex data types exchanged via remotable service interfaces must be
compatible with the
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
2007/12/5, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Some answers after researching the spec docs:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think this issue needs to be brought up at the spec level.
Basically, the following have to be clarified:
1) What
: Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: Remotable interfaces and pass by value, was: Data
transformation from/to POJO
This approach sounds good to me. I'd like to suggest one small
addition to the final else clause, based
Great!
Giorgio, if I understand correctly, the above scheme will help you
trigger the XStream databinding for objects that implement the
XStreamable interface you've defined.
Yes. I use it also for serializing Jobs, but I'm going to change this.
I feel that too much xml
is compute extensive.
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Remotable interfaces and pass by value, was: Data
transformation from/to POJO
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Some answers after researching
PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
I think there are two options:
1) Make the JAXB databinding as the default databinding for POJOs (simple
and complex types).
What about doing
2007/12/5, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Some answers after researching the spec docs:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think this issue needs to be brought up at the spec level.
Basically, the following have to be clarified:
1) What interfaces
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I have checked in the first cut under
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=601501view=rev. With these changes, we
now use JAXB databinding to deal with POJOs (including simple and
complex types). By the JAXB Java to XML default mapping, POJOs are
supported in line with
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Some answers after researching the spec docs:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think this issue needs to be brought up at the spec level.
Basically, the following have to be clarified:
1) What interfaces are qualified to be remotable?
2) What are the characteristics
In that example, what is the object representing the Job that's going to
be serialized over the network (and I guess sent to a Worker)? Farm?
DoSweep? or ParDegree?
What are the main characteristics of the Job objects?
A Job is a java simple class, which implements
a compute method (ala
Some answers after researching the spec docs:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think this issue needs to be brought up at the spec level. Basically,
the following have to be clarified:
1) What interfaces are qualified to be remotable?
2) What are the characteristics of the input/output types for
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
2007/11/29, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
2007/11/28, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
One of the first problem that i had, when I started using Tuscany, was that
I was serialize something without a mapping, because I
Simon Nash wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
I have some suggestions here:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
snip
I prefer to have consistent rules (with respect to what the business
objects can look like or must implement) between a remotable
interface bound to an XML-based binding and a
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
I think there are two options:
1) Make the JAXB databinding as the default databinding for POJOs
(simple and complex types).
What about doing that? any
2007/11/28, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
One of the first problem that i had, when I started using Tuscany, was that
I was serialize something without a mapping, because I wanted that a
job was something
more generics possible, i couldn't.
I'm not
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
2007/11/28, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
One of the first problem that i had, when I started using Tuscany, was that
I was serialize something without a mapping, because I wanted that a
job was something
more generics possible, i
Folks,
I have some suggestions here:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
snip
I prefer to have consistent rules (with respect to what the business
objects can look like or must implement) between a remotable interface
bound to an XML-based binding and a remotable interface used for in-VM
2007/11/29, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
2007/11/28, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
One of the first problem that i had, when I started using Tuscany, was that
I was serialize something without a mapping, because I wanted that a
Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
I have some suggestions here:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
snip
I prefer to have consistent rules (with respect to what the business
objects can look like or must implement) between a remotable interface
bound to an XML-based binding and a remotable
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
I think there are two options:
1) Make the JAXB databinding as the default databinding for POJOs
(simple and complex types).
What about doing that? any drawback?
And, jumping ahead and assuming that any
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
I think there are two options:
1) Make the JAXB databinding as the default databinding for POJOs
(simple and complex types).
What about doing that? any drawback?
And, jumping ahead
?
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote
2007/11/28, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
I think there are two options:
1) Make the JAXB databinding as the default databinding for POJOs
(simple and complex types).
What about doing that? any
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
One of the first problem that i had, when I started using Tuscany, was that
I was serialize something without a mapping, because I wanted that a
job was something
more generics possible, i couldn't.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by serialize something without
a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I just did a test to see how JAXB-RI handles the POJO without any
annotations. The result seems to be promising.
I started with a POJO
- Original Message - From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I just did a test to see how JAXB-RI handles the POJO without any
I'll prototype to see if it's feasible.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
I think
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
I think there are two options:
1) Make the JAXB databinding as the default databinding for POJOs
(simple and complex types).
What about doing that? any drawback?
And, jumping ahead and assuming that any drawbacks are acceptable, what
Raymond,
Where angels fear to tread
My initial thoughts about this mused on why people had spent so much
time on specs like SDO and JAXB. If mapping POJOs to XML was simple and
straightforward, why did we need those large specs?
Perhaps you are right in thinking that there are simple cases
Mike has brought up a very good point. I don't think it would make
sense for Tuscany to invent yet another Java to XML mapping. What
are the issues if we were to go with what JAXB defines for this?
Simon
Mike Edwards wrote:
Raymond,
Where angels fear to tread
My initial thoughts about
: Data transformation from/to POJO
Mike has brought up a very good point. I don't think it would make
sense for Tuscany to invent yet another Java to XML mapping. What
are the issues if we were to go with what JAXB defines for this?
Simon
Mike Edwards wrote:
Raymond,
Where angels fear
Java/XML mapping (no
XSD or annotations are required), I would be happy to use it.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Mike has brought
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I'm on the same boat as Mike and you. The discussion was about how can
we simplify the data transformation of a subset of POJOs following a
strict pattern without starting from a formal model such as XSD. I don't
know any JAXB implementation can handle a POJO without
.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance;
xmlns:ns2=http://ns1;age20/agenameTest/name/ns2:bean
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I just did a test to see how JAXB-RI handles the POJO without any
annotations. The result seems to be promising.
I started with a POJO:
public class MyBean {
private int age;
private String name;
private ListString notes = new ArrayListString();
public
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
With the recent development of the online store tutorial, we encounter
quite a few issues around the transformation between POJO and other
databindings (such as XML, JSON).
Yeah :)
Let's take the POJO -- XML as an example. Here is a set of questions
to be
Please see comments inline.
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
With the recent development
Raymond Feng wrote:
Please see comments inline.
Raymond
- Original Message - From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi
Raymond Feng wrote:
Please see comments inline.
Raymond
- Original Message - From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Data transformation from/to POJO
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi
Hi,
With the recent development of the online store tutorial, we encounter quite
a few issues around the transformation between POJO and other databindings
(such as XML, JSON).
Let's take the POJO -- XML as an example. Here is a set of questions to be
answered.
1) Do we require the POJO
42 matches
Mail list logo
