C++ runtime extensibility story

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>]

Could somebody working on the C++ runtime give us an overview of the C++ 
extensibility story (I'm not sure if you guys already have defined 
something but I thought I'd ask anyway). How can somebody add a 
component implementation extension or a binding extension to the C++ 
runtime?

I'm currently looking at the design of our Java runtime extensibility 
and trying to see how we can improve it, maybe we can steal some good 
ideas from your C++ work :) or share ideas on the subject. Thanks

-- 
Jean-Sebastien


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org

Re: C++ runtime extensibility story

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

Great questions!

On 21/06/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Could somebody working on the C++ runtime give us an overview of the C++
> extensibility story (I'm not sure if you guys already have defined
> something but I thought I'd ask anyway). How can somebody add a
> component implementation extension or a binding extension to the C++
> runtime?


We have no architected way of doing this. So for instance adding Axis2C ws
bindings has required changes to the model loading, the runtime core and
writing the binding code itself. Although this is far from ideal it is
fairly simple and not a great problem unless we have many new
implementations/bindings to add in. I had planned to have an SPI to allow
easier integration but time got the better of that plan... for now.

I'm currently looking at the design of our Java runtime extensibility
> and trying to see how we can improve it, maybe we can steal some good
> ideas from your C++ work :) or share ideas on the subject. Thanks


I've been trying to follow the Java extensibiity design and will spend some
more time on this over the coming weeks. I guess the only idea that you
could steal from us would be "keep it simple" ;-)


-- 
Pete