On Sep 27, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Hi Raymond,
I agree with Jim on that the indexing is cryptic. How about this...
@DataType((<arg1_type>, <arg2_type>)<returnType>).
This to me is a lot easier to follow. Raymond, to the higher level
question, the example seems a bit strange so maybe you can explain it
further?
Jim
i.e. we specify for all arguments and the returntype. The transformer
decides to transform only those whose source and target types
differ. Makes
sense ?
Thanks
- Venkat
On 9/27/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 27, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that we have to revisit this issue again. During past
> discussions, we thought it would be sufficient to only support
> interface and operation level databinding declarations and assumed
> that mixed databindings on the same operation was crazy :-).
>
> I now have difficulties to identify which parameters for a java
> method should be transformed based on the interface/operation level
> databinding. Let's have an example below.
>
> Case 1: The "xml" parameter is an XML string, but "plainStr" is a
> simple plain string
> @DataType(name="xml:string")
> String myOp(String xml, String plainStr, int i);
>
> I can ssume that parameters with primitive types such as "i" bear
> JavaDataBinding but I cannot differentiate "xml" and
> "plainStr" (neither the return value).
>
> Case 2:
> @DataType(name="commonj.sdo.DataObject)
> Address getCustomer(Customer customer, String str, Object obj);
>
> Is it reasonable to have "Customer" a DataObject and "Address" a
> java bean? How about "obj"?
>
This seems a bit strange. What meaning do str and obj have in the
service contract? Maybe there is a better example?
> The key issue here is that java method by default uses
> JavaDataBinding. Declaring a different databinding such as
> XMLString or SDO actually starts to have mixed databindings for one
> method.
>
> Interestingly, this issue is not really a problem for WSDL which
> usually types the operation parameters as XSD types and a java/xml
> binding technology such as AXIOM, DOM, SDO or JAXB comes behind it.
> One databinding for the whole WSDL port type sounds reasonable.
>
> I have a proposal to add an attribute to the operation level
> databinding declarations to explicitly spell out the list of
> parameters (or return value).
>
> @DataType(name="commonj.sdo.DataObject" parameters={0, 2, -1}) //
> "parameters" is a list of indexes for the args, -1 for return value
>
Indexing like this is error prone and difficult to read. If do need
multiple parameter types, we should have an an optional attribute
specifying the return type and a collection of data types for
parameters similar to @Constructor
> If "parameters" is not specified then we assume it applies to all
> parameters and the return value.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
