Hi Raymond, Thanks. Am going ahead with this.
- Venkat On 12/13/06, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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]
