Hi, Venkat.
You don't have to create a new extension point here as we already have one:
org.apache.tuscany.spi.DataBinding
org.apache.tuscany.spi.DataBindingRegistry
You can just add the copy(...) method to
"org.apache.tuscany.spi.DataBinding".
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Venkata Krishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: Pass-by-value support for remotable interfaces
Hi Raymond,
Here is what I have thought about the databinding dependent copying: -
- Create an interface called 'DataCopier' that has 'copy' and
'getDataBinding' methods.
- Have various databindings implement this interface. For example
OMElementCopier, SDOCopier and so on.
- In the PassByValueInterceptor, have 'copier' object. i.e. in the wire
post
processor we look at the databinding of the target and create an
appropriate
copier. We then configure the PassByValueIntercpetor with this copier
object. As part of the invoke method the interceptor will call the
Copier's
copy method.
- As in the case of transformers, we can have a registry of copiers keyed
by
their databinding.
Will this approach work? Have I missed out something in this ? Thanks.
- Venkat
On 12/8/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Well here is what I picked up from the specs and C&I model
> "The @AllowsPassByReference annotation on the implementation of a
> remotable
> service is used to either declare that calls to the whole interface or
> individual methods allow pass by reference." and "Either a whole
> class
> implementing a remotable service or the individual remotable
> service method
> implementation can be annotated using the @AllowsPassByReference
> annotation.
> "
>
> and then there are samples as well that show the annotations being
> used in
> these two ways. HenceI have stared to think this way.
>
Yes they are in there but I believe we changed that and may not have
updated the spec. At least that was my and Mike Rowley's
recollection. Let me check tomorrow. We've changed a number of
things back and forth so it's quite possible I don't remember where
we wound up. If it is per operation, that is potentially very error-
prone so I will take it up with the spec group.
>
>
> I am yet to take a look at the PolicyBuilder related stuff. Will
> take this
> to completion and then migrate to that. I am most certain it
> would be no
> problem fitting this stuff there once I have the basic things
> working. What
> do you feel?
I don't know but I would hope there are not problems - if not let me
know and I'll try to help.
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]
