Hi Jeremy, Thank you for your support. Comments inline marked with [RA]
Your comments are greatly appreciated. Btw I have asked the spec group to publish a draft version of the JMS binding spec. We are having a review next week and after that, if the WG votes we will publish the spec as a draft. Regards, Rajith On 9/14/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Rajith I have a question on the thought behind sca:databinding. In Tuscany we have a databinding framework that allows us to convert between different data formats on a wire - for example, a component can call out using a SDO to a component that is expecting a JAXB object and the framework would automatically handle the conversion between the two. We also do that for physical bindings to convert between the binding's native data representation the that expected by the component - for example, the Axis2 binding uses AXIOM as its representation and we use the framework to convert to/from thet POJOs (or SDOs, JAXBs, etc.) expected by components. For JMS, I assume the native format would be a javax.jms.Message -
[RA] Yes the native format is javax.jms.Message how do you see the relationship between sca:databinding specified in
the binding and our databinding framework?
[RA] The specification says the data binding is supposed to map from their native format which is javax.jms.Message to that expected by the SCA runtime and target component, which could be POJOs, SDOs ..etc. It's similar to what you described with the Axis2 binding example. Therefore I assume the databinding framework defined in Tuscany also operates on the same principles.
Does the user need to specify an sca one,
[RA] I am sorry I didn't quite understand you here. Please explain again. or could they just leave it to use to convert the
message using our framework?
[RA] I certainly hope to leverage the data binding framework defined in Tuscany. [RA] On a general note, The operation to invoke could be included as a JMS message property or it could be in the payload. The spec does not mandate this, which I think is going to cause interoperability issues. We need to utilize some databinding mechanism to serialize the arguments (and possibly the operation name) in to one of the message body types defined by JMS. I favor Text, Object and Bytes in that order. We could use xmlbeans or JAXB to convert from the object representation to the XML format and send it as a text message. Or use java serialization with the ObjectMessage to send some POJO around. Or some arbitary serialization mechnism where you can leverage the BytesMessage. I prefer option one. Comments are greatly appreciated. --
Jeremy On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to propose a binding based on JMS and the details are > captured > in the wiki. > http://wiki.apache.org/ws/Tuscany/TuscanyJava/SCA_Java/JMSBinding > > Please check it out and I would like to hear everybodys thoughts on > this. > > Thanks, > > Rajith --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
