Re: About the OASIS HTTP binding specification proposal

[Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>]

> Its worth noting that in the user survey we did a while back of all
> the bindings we have the Tuscany http binding was the second most
> popular with only the WS binding being more used. Hard to tell what
> people are doing with it, i've wondered if that was a survey mistake,
> or maybe they use it to have have an SCA component with access to the
> http request/response which has been asked for a few times on the user
> list.
>
> Co-existence and compatibility with the existing Tuscany http binding
> is an interesting question. They are in separate namespaces so we
> could in theory have them both, though that seems bound to result in
> errors when the wrong namespace or modules are included. Maybe in 2.x
> we could say we only support the OASIS http binding spec, though that
> doesn't quite fit in with whats being said about backward
> compatibility.
>

I have created TUSCANY-2968 and have started working on this. For now,
I'll create a tuscany-http-oasis and tuscany-http-runtime-oasis
modules from our current http binding and start adding the new
behaviors specified on the draft specification. I guess the idea would
be to continue to have similar functionality as we have today, and
once things are stable on the new binding, we could promote it to the
official http binding.

Thoughts ?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2968


-- 
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: About the OASIS HTTP binding specification proposal

[ant elder <an...@apache.org>]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:13 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Sounds good to me, presumably in 2.x the OASIS one would be the
>> primary binding and the old Tuscany one would be deprecated just there
>> for backward compatibility.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if I even want to add the current (soon to be old)
> binding-http into 2.x as the OASIS current direction is to use the one
> in draft status now.
>

That comes down to what we decide about backward compatibility, if we
want to be able to say 2.x is backward compatible to 1.x then we need
all the old extensions supported in 1.x. Or we might say its "mostly"
backward compaible and document a few things not supportted in 2.x.
Its probably also possible to support a reasonable subset of the 1.x
binding.http function with the new OASIS one with just a little extra
code to support the old tuscany namespace.

   ...ant

Re: About the OASIS HTTP binding specification proposal

[Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:13 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sounds good to me, presumably in 2.x the OASIS one would be the
> primary binding and the old Tuscany one would be deprecated just there
> for backward compatibility.
>

I'm not sure if I even want to add the current (soon to be old)
binding-http into 2.x as the OASIS current direction is to use the one
in draft status now.


-- 
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: About the OASIS HTTP binding specification proposal

[ant elder <an...@apache.org>]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Its worth noting that in the user survey we did a while back of all
>> the bindings we have the Tuscany http binding was the second most
>> popular with only the WS binding being more used. Hard to tell what
>> people are doing with it, i've wondered if that was a survey mistake,
>> or maybe they use it to have have an SCA component with access to the
>> http request/response which has been asked for a few times on the user
>> list.
>>
>> Co-existence and compatibility with the existing Tuscany http binding
>> is an interesting question. They are in separate namespaces so we
>> could in theory have them both, though that seems bound to result in
>> errors when the wrong namespace or modules are included. Maybe in 2.x
>> we could say we only support the OASIS http binding spec, though that
>> doesn't quite fit in with whats being said about backward
>> compatibility.
>>
>
> I have created TUSCANY-2968 and have started working on this. For now,
> I'll create a tuscany-http-oasis and tuscany-http-runtime-oasis
> modules from our current http binding and start adding the new
> behaviors specified on the draft specification. I guess the idea would
> be to continue to have similar functionality as we have today, and
> once things are stable on the new binding, we could promote it to the
> official http binding.
>
> Thoughts ?
>

Sounds good to me, presumably in 2.x the OASIS one would be the
primary binding and the old Tuscany one would be deprecated just there
for backward compatibility.

   ...ant