You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> on 2007/08/19 20:46:58 UTC
Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really
generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually using
the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol.
Thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
OK, it was just a thought. It isn't an exact equivalent. I was
thinking that the ws part is a generic technology and axis2 is a
particular implementation of the generic technology. Similarly ajax
is generic and dwr is specific.
Simon
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> Simon Nash wrote:
>
>> How about binding-ajax-dwr? This seems to go well with binding-ws-axis2.
>>
>
> That seems to contradict what we said before as:
> - DWR is a transport protocol (like JSON, another protocol)
> - but Axis2 is an implementation.
>
>
>> Simon
>>
>> Mike Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to the rename. Best to name the binding by the transport
>>> mechanism involved, not the implementation used to drive it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours, Mike.
>>>
>>> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>>>
>>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really
>>>>>> generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Simon Nash wrote:
> How about binding-ajax-dwr? This seems to go well with binding-ws-axis2.
>
That seems to contradict what we said before as:
- DWR is a transport protocol (like JSON, another protocol)
- but Axis2 is an implementation.
> Simon
>
> Mike Edwards wrote:
>
>> +1 to the rename. Best to name the binding by the transport
>> mechanism involved, not the implementation used to drive it.
>>
>>
>> Yours, Mike.
>>
>> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>>
>>> ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really
>>>>> generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually
>>>>> using
>>>>> the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
How about binding-ajax-dwr? This seems to go well with binding-ws-axis2.
Simon
Mike Edwards wrote:
> +1 to the rename. Best to name the binding by the transport mechanism
> involved, not the implementation used to drive it.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>
>> ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really
>>>> generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually
>>>> using
>>>> the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right now that it uses DWR is an implementation detail thats not exposed
>>> anywhere, just as Axis2 is not exposed anywhere in our binding.ws, so
>>> really
>>> we can call it whatever we like.
>>
>>
>> Axis2 is an implementation detail, and that's the reason why we do not
>> say <binding.axis2> in SCA.
>>
>> However, the protocol used to expose a service in an SOA is not an
>> implementation detail at all...
>>
>> Here are three examples:
>> binding.ws -> the SOAP protocol is used to talk to the service
>> binding.jsonrpc -> the JSON-RPC protocol is used to talk to the service
>> binding.ajax -> the Direct Web Remoting protocol is used to talk to
>> the service
>>
>> Binding.dwr will better indicate than binding.ajax that the service is
>> provided through the DWR protocol.
>>
>>> To web clients binding.jsonrpc used to work
>>> acidentically to binding.ajax but the last couple of changes to
>>> binding.jsonrpc mean they've now got out of sync. If renaming
>>> binding-ajax
>>> will help you engage in keeping these both updated to work the same then
>>> Yes! lets rename it.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I'll rename it then.
>>
>> If you're talking about the change to how service URIs get determined,
>> I'll be happy to help make it work like the other ones, but...
>>
>> - it didn't seem like it was initially working like the other ones, as
>> it hardcoded a single URI and didn't use the binding URI at all,
>> here's the code I found:
>>
>> public static final String SERVLET_PATH =
>> AjaxServlet.AJAX_SERVLET_PATH + "/*";
>>
>> and
>>
>> servlet.addService(binding.getName(), type, proxy);
>>
>> - answering my question on this subject at [1] would be a good
>> starting point
>>
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200708.mbox/%3C46C2C2DF.8030100@apache.org%3E
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> How about the binding.resource and implementation.resource? Should they be
> renamed to binding.http and implementation.file? :)
>
> ...ant
>
>
Actually, yes for binding.resource, good point! :)
I'll push it out of the implementation-resource module, into a
binding-http module (since having it in implementation-resource is also
creating an inconsistency with the package names, which I noticed
yesterday as I was reviewing packages and starting to look into this
kind of naming issues).
With respect to the implementation extension type, I'd like to stick to
implementation.resource for now, as this implementation covers files,
folders, and I think could cover more "resource" types (as the Tomcat
default resource servlet can also cover "virtual" resource directories
mapped to JNDI namespaces for example).
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
How about the binding.resource and implementation.resource? Should they be
renamed to binding.http and implementation.file? :)
...ant
On 8/20/07, Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to the rename. Best to name the binding by the transport mechanism
> involved, not the implementation used to drive it.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> > ant elder wrote:
> >> On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really
> >>> generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually
> using
> >>> the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Right now that it uses DWR is an implementation detail thats not
> exposed
> >> anywhere, just as Axis2 is not exposed anywhere in our binding.ws, so
> >> really
> >> we can call it whatever we like.
> >
> > Axis2 is an implementation detail, and that's the reason why we do not
> > say <binding.axis2> in SCA.
> >
> > However, the protocol used to expose a service in an SOA is not an
> > implementation detail at all...
> >
> > Here are three examples:
> > binding.ws -> the SOAP protocol is used to talk to the service
> > binding.jsonrpc -> the JSON-RPC protocol is used to talk to the service
> > binding.ajax -> the Direct Web Remoting protocol is used to talk to the
> > service
> >
> > Binding.dwr will better indicate than binding.ajax that the service is
> > provided through the DWR protocol.
> >
> >> To web clients binding.jsonrpc used to work
> >> acidentically to binding.ajax but the last couple of changes to
> >> binding.jsonrpc mean they've now got out of sync. If renaming
> >> binding-ajax
> >> will help you engage in keeping these both updated to work the same
> then
> >> Yes! lets rename it.
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >>
> >
> > OK, I'll rename it then.
> >
> > If you're talking about the change to how service URIs get determined,
> > I'll be happy to help make it work like the other ones, but...
> >
> > - it didn't seem like it was initially working like the other ones, as
> > it hardcoded a single URI and didn't use the binding URI at all, here's
> > the code I found:
> >
> > public static final String SERVLET_PATH =
> > AjaxServlet.AJAX_SERVLET_PATH + "/*";
> >
> > and
> >
> > servlet.addService(binding.getName(), type, proxy);
> >
> > - answering my question on this subject at [1] would be a good starting
> > point
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200708.mbox/%3C46C2C2DF.8030100@apache.org%3E
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
+1 to the rename. Best to name the binding by the transport mechanism
involved, not the implementation used to drive it.
Yours, Mike.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
>> On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really
>>> generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually using
>>> the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Right now that it uses DWR is an implementation detail thats not exposed
>> anywhere, just as Axis2 is not exposed anywhere in our binding.ws, so
>> really
>> we can call it whatever we like.
>
> Axis2 is an implementation detail, and that's the reason why we do not
> say <binding.axis2> in SCA.
>
> However, the protocol used to expose a service in an SOA is not an
> implementation detail at all...
>
> Here are three examples:
> binding.ws -> the SOAP protocol is used to talk to the service
> binding.jsonrpc -> the JSON-RPC protocol is used to talk to the service
> binding.ajax -> the Direct Web Remoting protocol is used to talk to the
> service
>
> Binding.dwr will better indicate than binding.ajax that the service is
> provided through the DWR protocol.
>
>> To web clients binding.jsonrpc used to work
>> acidentically to binding.ajax but the last couple of changes to
>> binding.jsonrpc mean they've now got out of sync. If renaming
>> binding-ajax
>> will help you engage in keeping these both updated to work the same then
>> Yes! lets rename it.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
>
> OK, I'll rename it then.
>
> If you're talking about the change to how service URIs get determined,
> I'll be happy to help make it work like the other ones, but...
>
> - it didn't seem like it was initially working like the other ones, as
> it hardcoded a single URI and didn't use the binding URI at all, here's
> the code I found:
>
> public static final String SERVLET_PATH =
> AjaxServlet.AJAX_SERVLET_PATH + "/*";
>
> and
>
> servlet.addService(binding.getName(), type, proxy);
>
> - answering my question on this subject at [1] would be a good starting
> point
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200708.mbox/%3C46C2C2DF.8030100@apache.org%3E
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really
>> generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually using
>> the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
>
> Right now that it uses DWR is an implementation detail thats not exposed
> anywhere, just as Axis2 is not exposed anywhere in our binding.ws, so really
> we can call it whatever we like.
Axis2 is an implementation detail, and that's the reason why we do not
say <binding.axis2> in SCA.
However, the protocol used to expose a service in an SOA is not an
implementation detail at all...
Here are three examples:
binding.ws -> the SOAP protocol is used to talk to the service
binding.jsonrpc -> the JSON-RPC protocol is used to talk to the service
binding.ajax -> the Direct Web Remoting protocol is used to talk to the
service
Binding.dwr will better indicate than binding.ajax that the service is
provided through the DWR protocol.
> To web clients binding.jsonrpc used to work
> acidentically to binding.ajax but the last couple of changes to
> binding.jsonrpc mean they've now got out of sync. If renaming binding-ajax
> will help you engage in keeping these both updated to work the same then
> Yes! lets rename it.
>
> ...ant
>
>
OK, I'll rename it then.
If you're talking about the change to how service URIs get determined,
I'll be happy to help make it work like the other ones, but...
- it didn't seem like it was initially working like the other ones, as
it hardcoded a single URI and didn't use the binding URI at all, here's
the code I found:
public static final String SERVLET_PATH =
AjaxServlet.AJAX_SERVLET_PATH + "/*";
and
servlet.addService(binding.getName(), type, proxy);
- answering my question on this subject at [1] would be a good starting
point
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200708.mbox/%3C46C2C2DF.8030100@apache.org%3E
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Renaming binding-ajax to binding-dwr?
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I'd like to rename binding-ajax to binding-dwr, as Ajax is a really
> generic term, and it will make clear that this binding is actually using
> the DWR (Direct Web Remoting) protocol.
>
> Thoughts?
Right now that it uses DWR is an implementation detail thats not exposed
anywhere, just as Axis2 is not exposed anywhere in our binding.ws, so really
we can call it whatever we like. To web clients binding.jsonrpc used to work
identically to binding.ajax but the last couple of changes to
binding.jsonrpc mean they've now got out of sync. If renaming binding-ajax
will help you engage in keeping these both updated to work the same then
Yes! lets rename it.
...ant