On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/18/08, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 4/18/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > TUSCANY 1881, talks about throwing a warning msg when adding remote > >> > bindings > >> > to services with interfaces not marked as remotable, by which the > data > >> > transformation might get messed up. > >> > > >> > From the current implementation, I understand that the > >> datatransformation > >> > interceptor will not be inserted in the invocation chain if the > target > >> > interface is not marked as remotable. Not having this interceptor > will > >> end > >> > up with binding specific data transformations not being done.. So > unless > >> > the > >> > target binding does have any trouble with the arguments and > returntypes > >> > because of the absence of transformations... we do not have any > issues. > >> > But > >> > otherwise we might end up in runtime exceptions being thrown. > >> > > >> > While thinking at a solution to this issue, i could think of various > >> > options > >> > as shown below, but not sure which one is the right approach? > >> > > >> > OPTION 1: About issue shows how lack of Remotable ends up in runtime > >> > exception when service methods are invoked, can't we somehow trap > this > >> > during component build or activatoin time itself? > >> > > >> > OPTION 2: I believe this whole thing can be solved if we can simply > >> check > >> > in > >> > the binding if the interface is marked remote. > >> > > >> > OPTION 3: Currently DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method > >> > checks > >> > if the source and target interfaces is remotable before it validates > to > >> > see > >> > if data transformation is required. One way of solution to throw a > >> warning > >> > msg is to check the source and target datatypes, if their datatypes > are > >> > diff > >> > we assume that data transformation is required and we look if the > >> > interfaces > >> > are marked remotable, if not we throw a warning msg to alert that > there > >> > could be an unexpected behaviour in data transformation. > >> > > >> > OPTION 4: In the DataBindingRuntimeWireProcessor.process() method, > just > >> > check if the source and target interface is remotable OR if the > source > >> and > >> > target datatypes are different. If any one condition is satisfied > then > >> we > >> > assume that data transformation is required. > >> > > >> > Apart from the above mentioned issue, do we need to make such checks > for > >> > ws > >> > binding as well OR do we need this checks for all kind of bindings. > Like > >> > to > >> > know people's view on this regard. Thanks. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Thanks & Regards, > >> > Ramkumar Ramalingam > >> > > >> > >> Hi Ramkumar > >> > >> When I originally raised the JIRA I had imagined the solution would be > >> your > >> OPTION 1. So that we get a warning that at least tells the user that > they > >> are doing something odd. In my case it took me a while to work out what > >> the > >> problem was so it would have been nice if the runtime had at least said > >> "you > >> are dong something strange are you sure you want to do this". > >> > >> I hadn't imagines that we could introduce a data transformation in this > >> case. Is there code in there that tries and optimizes away the remote > >> binding if it detects that the components are running locally? > >> > >> Simon > >> > > > > Hi Simon, > > I believe, we don't do any validatation to identify if the component is > > local / remote. But anyway we assume that the component is remote by > > checking if the interface is remotable. I could see that we only check > if > > the interfaces are remotable and we try to apply appropriate binding and > > data transformation upon them. > > > > I agree with your idea of identifying the component as local/remote and > do > > some optimization on binding and data transformation part. If everyone > > agrees that we need this in place we can probably think of taking this > > suggestion forward. > > > > -- > > Thanks & Regards, > > Ramkumar Ramalingam > > > > Hi Simon, > In the mean time, while leaving the optimization part. To fix the issue > mentioned in TUSCANY-1881, i believe the best solution would be to > identify > at the bindingProvider level (except for binding.sca) to check if the > source > and target interface is remotable and throw a warning message as required. > > Hope this helps. > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Ramkumar Ramalingam > Sounds good to me. Simon
