On Sep 23, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
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.
I don't quite understand. <binding.sca> is in the SCA 0.96 spec.
Are you suggesting that <binding.sca> should be removed from the
SCA spec? Has this been brought up to the SCA assembly spec workgroup?
Are you saying that you are not going to implement a default
binding (with or without a <binding.sca> element) in Tuscany/Java?
or just that you're not going to support <binding.sca>?
I'm asking why do we need it - what does it allow a user to do that
is not already covered by wiring and physical bindings? What is a
"default binding" useful for?
Knowing why you're doing something is essential for implementing it -
and if we don't know why then its reasonable to ask the spec what
they were thinking.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
