You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2006/07/29 11:11:08 UTC
Porting the old ajax/jsonrpc/dwr bindings to the new runtime?
Should I port the old jsonrpc or ajax binding extensions to the new runtime?
There's one for jsonrpc-java that only supports entryPoints and one using
DWR that also supports comet style externalServices. There's some emails
describing them at [1] and [2]. I was never completely happy with the
approach of these bindings or if there was so much interest in having them,
so what should I do - port them over as-is and continue to refine them,
forget about them, something else?
...ant
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200605.mbox/%3c71e1b5740605240417n36050518s24e5c24f53bc4754@mail.gmail.com%3e
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200603.mbox/%3c71e1b5740603220229h1fa85298l5fffcac13557e9a5@mail.gmail.com%3e
Re: Porting the old ajax/jsonrpc/dwr bindings to the new runtime?
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Jul 29, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> It would be good to have them. Not only are they useful in their
> own right, they also validate that the runtime can handle data
> types and formats that are not XML based.
>
I also think they are useful to have, particularly to validate the
extension approach.
> Can you say what you weren't happy with in the approach? Do you
> have any ideas on how they can be improved?
>
> You'd mentioned to me that you weren't convinced on the JS client
> side and that something like DOJO might be an alternative - is that
> the kind of thing you're thinking of?
>
It would be good if improved our UI story. I believe Ken was
eventually going to look at integrating with Spring WebFlow and it
would be interesting to layer in something like Dojo. When I ever got
around to it, I was thinking about writing an embedded SCA runtime in
Actionscript that would support most of the SCA programming model
including stateful conversations and callbacks (actionscript and the
Flash player support binary serialization and true sockets). I've
started to think a lot of UI programming could be greatly simplified
by applying the SCA conversational pattern. For example, a web ui
flow and state could be modeled as a stateful conversation. The one
thing missing from SCA is the ability to define a choreography for
operation invocations (BPEL I guess does some of that but it seems
ill-suited for UI design).
Anyway, I haven't thought that much about it other than having
integration with cool UI technologies may be a way to spark more
interest and provide visual appeal to Tuscany.
> --
> Jeremy
>
> On Jul 29, 2006, at 2:11 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> Should I port the old jsonrpc or ajax binding extensions to the
>> new runtime?
>> There's one for jsonrpc-java that only supports entryPoints and
>> one using
>> DWR that also supports comet style externalServices. There's some
>> emails
>> describing them at [1] and [2]. I was never completely happy with the
>> approach of these bindings or if there was so much interest in
>> having them,
>> so what should I do - port them over as-is and continue to refine
>> them,
>> forget about them, something else?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/
>> 200605.mbox/%
>> 3c71e1b5740605240417n36050518s24e5c24f53bc4754@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>
>> [2]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/
>> 200603.mbox/%
>> 3c71e1b5740603220229h1fa85298l5fffcac13557e9a5@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Porting the old ajax/jsonrpc/dwr bindings to the new runtime?
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
It would be good to have them. Not only are they useful in their own
right, they also validate that the runtime can handle data types and
formats that are not XML based.
Can you say what you weren't happy with in the approach? Do you have
any ideas on how they can be improved?
You'd mentioned to me that you weren't convinced on the JS client
side and that something like DOJO might be an alternative - is that
the kind of thing you're thinking of?
--
Jeremy
On Jul 29, 2006, at 2:11 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Should I port the old jsonrpc or ajax binding extensions to the new
> runtime?
> There's one for jsonrpc-java that only supports entryPoints and one
> using
> DWR that also supports comet style externalServices. There's some
> emails
> describing them at [1] and [2]. I was never completely happy with the
> approach of these bindings or if there was so much interest in
> having them,
> so what should I do - port them over as-is and continue to refine
> them,
> forget about them, something else?
>
> ...ant
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200605.mbox/
> %3c71e1b5740605240417n36050518s24e5c24f53bc4754@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200603.mbox/
> %3c71e1b5740603220229h1fa85298l5fffcac13557e9a5@mail.gmail.com%3e
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org