tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Kurz <scottk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: TUSCANY-3166 - Understanding the requirements to use "wrapper style" interface.wsdl
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:12:33 GMT
Luciano,

The case I mentioned was more of a bottom-up case , in that we started
with the Java REST-like interface.

So say I start with this interface, write a Java impl, expose a
service over <binding.atom>.  Now in order to invoke this same impl
over a different binding like <binding.ws>, I generate an
<interface.wsdl> and place this configuration on my component service
description.

To me it sounds like you're assuming this would have an impact on the
actual wireformat of the binding.atom invocation of the existing
service.   My assumption was that it would NOT impact the wireformat
at all.   So the presence of a doc-lit-wrapped <interface.wsdl> does
not necessarily mean that a wrapper element will appear in the payload
XML.  The WSDL interface is abstract and the concrete "binding" to a
binding-specific format is something for us to define.

I'm not saying that should be the final word on the subject... just
explaining my assumptions.   But this also explains why I viewed this
as more of a tweak in using the right Tuscany databinding APIs rather
than adding support to handle a fundamentally new type of wire format.

After working on the JMS binding with its spec-defined default
wireFormat where a doc-lit-wrapped WSDL doesn't necessarily result in
a wrapper element being serialized onto the wire (for a single
parm)... I guess at least there is some precedent for the idea that a
doc-lit-WSDL doesn't, for all bindings, result in serializing a
document literally conforming to the message part schema.   But it
does all seem a bit ugly to me I admit...

Scott

Mime
View raw message