Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-49003-apmail-tuscany-dev-archive=tuscany.apache.org@tuscany.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-tuscany-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 83348 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2011 19:18:22 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Jan 2011 19:18:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 51974 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2011 19:18:22 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-tuscany-dev-archive@tuscany.apache.org
Received: (qmail 51872 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2011 19:18:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tuscany.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@tuscany.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@tuscany.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@tuscany.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.tuscany.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tuscany.apache.org
Received: (qmail 51865 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jan 2011 19:18:21 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:18:21 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [76.96.62.32] (HELO qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net)
 (76.96.62.32)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:18:13 +0000
Received: from omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.12])
	by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
	id uBP51f0020Fqzac53KHs2B; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:17:52 +0000
Received: from [9.52.158.168] ([32.97.110.64])
	by omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
	id uKHj1f00D1PQX0o3UKHmZH; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:17:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4D2CACD5.1030307@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:17:41 -0800
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino <jsdelfino@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: Databinding mediation between part-based and doc-wrapped
 operations
References: <4D256972.5020605@apache.org>
	<A1C97051-85F6-48CA-A402-450377CFA4F2@gmail.com>
	<4D261F2B.4090003@apache.org>
	<F219724D-3F09-47B8-9C86-19929F1C465B@gmail.com>
	<4D275F35.8020207@apache.org>
	<AANLkTi=YkFYFvHfrdNgqitbcRnbSdjowfV6SwaTUooLZ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D2B5C22.1020507@apache.org>	<4D2B69DE.4050604@apache.org>
	<4D2B830D.5070707@apache.org>	<4D2BAF22.1000502@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=H99gEDYaeuVZDS53gVXOtYgkK5k-EEeGSHjxq@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=1M92GGsbKsOYbT_BS4SSiwQLn=WzVSOL3LZop@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimzgfHipdEr57KUmWd9KiqMv6SSRQHLCehPqC5_@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimzgfHipdEr57KUmWd9KiqMv6SSRQHLCehPqC5_@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On 01/11/2011 08:57 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> Sorry that my example wasn't clear. I had set up the following composite...
>
>
> <composite xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912"
>    xmlns:t="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.1"
>    targetNamespace="http://test"
>    name="testnativeasyncbare">
>
>      <component name="SampleNativeAsyncReference">
>          <t:implementation.sample
> class="sample.UpperSampleAsyncReferenceBareImpl"/>
>          <reference name="upper" target="SampleNativeAsyncService">
>              <interface.wsdl
> interface="http://sample/upper-async-wrapped#wsdl.interface(UpperWrapped)"/>
>          </reference>
>      </component>
>
>      <component name="SampleNativeAsyncService">
>          <t:implementation.sample
> class="sample.UpperSampleAsyncServiceWrappedImpl"/>
>      </component>
>
> </composite>
>
> With the interface the "upper" reference in
> UpperSampleAsyncReferenceBareImpl defined as bare WSDL as follows
>
>      <wsdl:types>
>          <schema elementFormDefault="qualified"
>                  targetNamespace="http://sample/upper-async-bare"
>                  xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
>              <element name="arg0" type="xsd:string" />
>              <element name="arg1" type="xsd:string" />
>
>              <element name="result" type="xsd:string" />
>          </schema>
>      </wsdl:types>
>
>      <wsdl:message name="upperRequest">
>          <wsdl:part element="tns:arg0" name="arg0" />
>          <wsdl:part element="tns:arg1" name="arg1" />
>      </wsdl:message>
>
>      <wsdl:message name="upperResponse">
>          <wsdl:part element="tns:result" name="result" />
>      </wsdl:message>
>
> While the interface on the reference in the composite is, as you can
> see, defined by the wrapped WSDL as follows
>
>      <wsdl:types>
>          <schema elementFormDefault="qualified"
>                  targetNamespace="http://sample/upper-async-wrapped"
>                  xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
>              <element name="upper">
>                  <complexType>
>                      <sequence>
>                          <element name="arg0" type="xsd:string" />
>                          <element name="arg1" type="xsd:string" />
>                      </sequence>
>                  </complexType>
>              </element>
>
>              <element name="upperResponse">
>                  <complexType>
>                      <sequence>
>                          <element name="result" type="xsd:string" />
>                      </sequence>
>                  </complexType>
>              </element>
>
>          </schema>
>      </wsdl:types>
>
>      <wsdl:message name="upperRequest">
>          <wsdl:part element="tns:upper" name="parameters" />
>      </wsdl:message>
>
>      <wsdl:message name="upperResponse">
>          <wsdl:part element="tns:upperResponse" name="parameters" />
>      </wsdl:message>
>
> As per previous discussion on this thread I would expect databinding
> to wrap the parameters from the implementation as per the wrapped
> WSDL. However this falls foul of the following test in
> Input2InputTransfomer
>
> if ((!sourceWrapped&&  !sourceBare)&&  targetWrapped) {
>      ...
> }
>
> This code inside the if does the wrapping but we don't go in as the
> bare WSDL of the source sets sourceBare = true.
>
> Having talking to Scott off line it seems that this test of
> !sourceBare (added for TUSCANY-2398) was specifically added to cater
> for the case where you've marked a Java interface operation as being
> bare using annotations. In this case you're saying that the interface
> may look like a wrapped interface but it isn't really so don't do any
> wrapping regardless of whether you think you need to or not.
>
> Be useful to get some confirmation of the details.
>
> It would seem then that what we really need is a flag that tells us
> about this special case rather than relying on testing whether a
> wrapper is present. Hoping the experts will comment on the
> practicalities.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon

OK I understand your example better now. Looks like you did (a):
'rpc' implementation reference + 'wrapped' reference in composite

That's slightly different from I did (b):
'rpc' implementation reference + 'wrapped binding in composite

With (a) I would have expected a validation error like: 'your two 
definitions of that Upper interface don't match', vs in (b) a 
negotiation (and databinding transformation) between the 'rpc' reference 
and the 'wrapped' binding.

Shouldn't (a) just report a validation error?

Or does the spec allow an <interface> element to alter the style of 
interface of a component implementation like you did in (a)?

If combination (a) is allowed, what interface do you expect to get from 
ComponentReference.getInterfaceContract().getInterface()?

-- 
Jean-Sebastien