tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Edwards <mike.edwards.inglen...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Interface contract mapping and remote interfaces
Date Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:37:19 GMT
Simon Laws wrote:
> I think we should try and keep this as simple as possible. At least
> for now. Saying interfaces have to be the same is pretty clear. I'm
> trying to identify those cases where we deviate from this and raised
> the OMElement case as we have explicit tests for it so it must be
> important to someone.
> I don't want to disable features if I can avoid it and there is a good
> reason for them (and we can justify them in the context of the spec or
> a Tuscany specific extension to the spec). On the other hand I don't
> want to go in and support a lot more flexibility that people are not
> asking us for and seem tricky to implement.
> Simon

Yes, +1 to "keep it simple".

Let's get the really simple case working first.

Then if there are some real situations where we need something different, let's examine them

carefully and make a proposal for something more complex only if it really brings benefits.

I think this discussion thread already started to touch on the complexities of permitting

subclasses.  Let's not go there unless we have to.

In the Web services, XML document exchange, world, extensibility is quite often handled by
means of 
explicit extension points within the document structures - similar to the way in which SCA
extensions of composite documents - the composite document is still a composite document (and
not a 
subclass of the document) even when it contains extension elements.

Yours,  Mike.

View raw message