26, 2007 1:30 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Marshalling WireDefinitions for federated deployment
For all of these:
specific manner. The content of that is completely under the
control of
the marshaller/unmarshaller for that extension so there is no need for
xml extension hooks
and strong typed sub-classes
for the
extensions.
Ta
Meeraj
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Boynes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:30 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Marshalling WireDefinitions for federated deployment
For all of these:
speci
WireDefinitions for federated deployment
For all of these:
> On Feb 25, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>> I'm little confused by this one. AIUI we have two configurations in
>> the physical world:
>> 1) two co-located components connected by a wire
>>t
On Feb 25, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
For all of these:
the element is an extension-specific, unique, versioned identifier
for the component implementation type, binding, or interceptor
builder. Meeraj's unmarshalling framework is able to dispatch the
to the appropriate unma
For all of these:
the element is an extension-specific, unique, versioned identifier
for the component implementation type, binding, or interceptor
builder. Meeraj's unmarshalling framework is able to dispatch the to
the appropriate unmarshaller in order to read the element in builder-
sp
On Feb 25, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I'm little confused by this one. AIUI we have two configurations in
the physical world:
1) two co-located components connected by a wire
the PCS would contain two PCDs and a PWD for the connection
2) a component connected to the network vi
I'm little confused by this one. AIUI we have two configurations in
the physical world:
1) two co-located components connected by a wire
the PCS would contain two PCDs and a PWD for the connection
2) a component connected to the network via a binding
the PCD would contain a PCD with bindi
s instance factory
byte code. PCDs are mainly used by the new physical component
builders.
Thanks
Meeraj
From: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Marshalling WireDefinitions for federated deployment
Date: Sun, 25 F
: Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Marshalling WireDefinitions for federated deployment
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:32:30 -0800
We need to settle on a marshalling format for WireDefinitions as they are
propagated fr
We need to settle on a marshalling format for WireDefinitions as they
are propagated from the Controller/Master to a slave where they will
be constituted as Wires. Meeraj has been doing work on the
Marshallers and I started to implement part of the
ConnectorImpl.connect(PhysicalWireDefiniti
10 matches
Mail list logo
