You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to soap-dev@xml.apache.org by Paul Fink <pf...@wamnet.com> on 2000/09/15 23:42:10 UTC
need for generalized Provider Type
Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
that we should have a more generalized implantation of
providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
Yes? No?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
> The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> of deployment.
>
> Any volunteers to do it?
>
> Sanjiva.
>
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by Paul Fink <pf...@wamnet.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane l. Davison" <Di...@oracle.com>
> Yes, definitely.
>
Good. Then I have a purpose in life. ;>}
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by Paul Fink <pf...@wamnet.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane l. Davison" <Di...@oracle.com>
> Yes, definitely.
>
Good. Then I have a purpose in life. ;>}
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by "Diane l. Davison" <Di...@oracle.com>.
Yes, definitely.
Paul Fink wrote:
> Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
> that we should have a more generalized implantation of
> providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
>
> Yes? No?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
> To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
>
> > The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> > (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> > generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> > descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> > appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> > descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> > of deployment.
> >
> > Any volunteers to do it?
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>.
Me three!
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George I Matkovits" <ma...@uswest.net>
To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: need for generalized Provider Type
> IMHO the additional provider implentation would be cleaner.
> I would vote yes,
> Regards - George
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> > I vote Yes too.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul Fink" <pf...@wamnet.com>
> > To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:42 PM
> > Subject: need for generalized Provider Type
> >
> > > Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
> > > that we should have a more generalized implantation of
> > > providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
> > >
> > > Yes? No?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
> > > To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
> > >
> > >
> > > > The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> > > > (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> > > > generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> > > > descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> > > > appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> > > > descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> > > > of deployment.
> > > >
> > > > Any volunteers to do it?
> > > >
> > > > Sanjiva.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>.
Me three!
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George I Matkovits" <ma...@uswest.net>
To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: need for generalized Provider Type
> IMHO the additional provider implentation would be cleaner.
> I would vote yes,
> Regards - George
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> > I vote Yes too.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul Fink" <pf...@wamnet.com>
> > To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:42 PM
> > Subject: need for generalized Provider Type
> >
> > > Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
> > > that we should have a more generalized implantation of
> > > providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
> > >
> > > Yes? No?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
> > > To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
> > >
> > >
> > > > The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> > > > (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> > > > generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> > > > descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> > > > appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> > > > descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> > > > of deployment.
> > > >
> > > > Any volunteers to do it?
> > > >
> > > > Sanjiva.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
IMHO the additional provider implentation would be cleaner.
I would vote yes,
Regards - George
Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I vote Yes too.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Fink" <pf...@wamnet.com>
> To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:42 PM
> Subject: need for generalized Provider Type
>
> > Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
> > that we should have a more generalized implantation of
> > providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
> >
> > Yes? No?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
> > To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
> >
> >
> > > The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> > > (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> > > generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> > > descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> > > appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> > > descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> > > of deployment.
> > >
> > > Any volunteers to do it?
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> >
> >
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
IMHO the additional provider implentation would be cleaner.
I would vote yes,
Regards - George
Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I vote Yes too.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Fink" <pf...@wamnet.com>
> To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:42 PM
> Subject: need for generalized Provider Type
>
> > Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
> > that we should have a more generalized implantation of
> > providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
> >
> > Yes? No?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
> > To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
> >
> >
> > > The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> > > (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> > > generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> > > descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> > > appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> > > descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> > > of deployment.
> > >
> > > Any volunteers to do it?
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> >
> >
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by Paul Fremantle <pz...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I vote Yes too.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Fink" <pf...@wamnet.com>
To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:42 PM
Subject: need for generalized Provider Type
> Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
> that we should have a more generalized implantation of
> providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
>
> Yes? No?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
> To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
>
>
> > The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> > (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> > generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> > descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> > appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> > descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> > of deployment.
> >
> > Any volunteers to do it?
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
>
>
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by "Diane l. Davison" <Di...@oracle.com>.
Yes, definitely.
Paul Fink wrote:
> Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
> that we should have a more generalized implantation of
> providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
>
> Yes? No?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
> To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
>
> > The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> > (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> > generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> > descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> > appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> > descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> > of deployment.
> >
> > Any volunteers to do it?
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
Re: need for generalized Provider Type
Posted by Paul Fremantle <pz...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I vote Yes too.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Fink" <pf...@wamnet.com>
To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:42 PM
Subject: need for generalized Provider Type
> Regardless of how EJBs are handle it would still seem
> that we should have a more generalized implantation of
> providers so that you all can plug in what-ever implementation you want.
>
> Yes? No?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sa...@watson.ibm.com>
> To: <so...@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Provider Type of "EJB"
>
>
> > The current codebase supports two types of providers: java and script
> > (some BSF supported scripting language). This definitely needs to be
> > generalized - its fairly easy to support an interface. The deployment
> > descriptor's type attribute would be used as a key to find the
> > appropriate implementation and we would have to make the deployment
> > descriptor extensible to enable whatever is needed for that type
> > of deployment.
> >
> > Any volunteers to do it?
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
>
>