So then it should be possible for me to change interface.wsdl to
interface.java, add a callback, and leave a binding.ws and the mapping would
still happen, right?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Feng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: How can we insert a DataBindingInterceptor for the outbound
wire of a composite-level reference?
Hi,
The contract for inbound wire of the Axis2Reference should be the one from
<interfac.xxx>. I just checked the code and it seems to work that way. The
helloworldwsclient use the interface.wsdl without the callback and that's
probably why see WSDLServiceContract.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ignacio Silva-Lepe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: How can we insert a DataBindingInterceptor for the outbound
wire of a composite-level reference?
Raymond,
Ok, I thought I understood this. In particular, an Axis2Reference's
inbound wire would be able to see an 'interface.contract', which I take
to mean a contract derived from the interface between the reference and,
say, a component wired to it, e.g., an interface.java.
However, for helloworldwsclient, when Axis2Reference does
inboundWire.getServiceContract it gets a WSDLServiceContract, from which
it gets null when it asks for getCallbackClass. Perhaps I misunderstood,
but the Axis2Reference needs to be able to get a handle on the callback
method for the interface with the component wired to it, in order to set
up the appropriate callback target invoker.
Thoughts?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: How can we insert a DataBindingInterceptor for the outbound
wire of a composite-level reference?
<snip/>
2. For references
inbound wire (interface.contract) --->outbound wire
(interface.contract) -->target invoker (binding.contract)
Which would mean the target invoker would have to perform the mapping
(similar to a service receiver)
My version:
inbound wire (interface.contract) ---> outbound wire
(binding.contract) -->target invoker (binding.contract)
Or, the second option would look like:
inbound wire (interface.contract) --->outbound wire
(binding.contract) -->target invoker (binding.contract)
I prefer to have the 2nd.
ok me too
The connector would be responsible for performing the mapping when it
connects the wires.
What do you think?
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
