On Sep 22, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
If we want interop can't we say use binding.ws since binding.sca
isn't really meant for interop but for optimization and abstraction
of the physical binding? I have a couple of concerns here. The
biggest one is that I don't want to require a web services stack
for the Java runtime (it should be able to run as a very small
footprint, some may not want to use web services). Related to this,
we would then have to select a Java web services stack, which I
would like to avoid.
For Java, I'd actually like to do something where binding.sca is
configurable or potentially not even needed to be specified. For
example, if I'm running on WebLogic, I may want binding.sca to be
T3 but if I'm running on Websphere maybe it is some other
specialized protocol. Or, it could be RMI which would run on both.
Jeremy will probably also throw in the question of whether
binding.sca is really needed ;-)
Why do we need binding.sca?
To connect SCA components we have wires. These wires may be remote
and if so we need a physical connection between the machines hosting
the components at either end. We never specify what transport should
be used, although the policies we apply may dictate one. There simply
is no concept of binding in the assembly here.
To connect to non-SCA components we have to use the protocol and
transport they are expecting. Any SCA concept of default is
meaningless - the SCA runtime cannot arbitrarily choose one as it
must match the one the non-SCA service is using.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
