Scott,
I think you ask a fair question here, which is definitely a question for
the Assembly spec working group to consider and answer.
Making it as succinct as I can, I think the issue is this:
For the interfaces at each end of a wire, when they are specified using
the same interface
Hi, Mike.
I like your proposal to define the interface compatibility. The current 1.0
spec is vague in this area.
One thing to clarify: are you proposing to use WSDL as the canonical IDL?
WSDL 1.1 or 2.0?
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Mike Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Mike.
Thank you for looking into it. Please see my comments inline.
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Mike Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 6:34 AM
Subject: Need spec defined Databindings? Was: (TUSCANY-824) DataBinding: Is
it
+1.
:-)
- Original Message -
From: Mike Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:34 PM
Subject: Need spec defined Databindings? Was: (TUSCANY-824) DataBinding: Is it
a concern of Programming Model vs. Assembly?
Folks,
OK, finally, I
Folks,
OK, finally, I bite ;-)
The question for me is whether we need the SCA (Java) spec to define
some standard metadata (typically annotations) for databindings of
services references.
I make the assumption that for much of the time, it is possible to work
out the required databinding
