some thoughts on wireFormat.jmsObject, documentation

[Scott Kurz <sc...@gmail.com>]

So in the absence of a spec, the conventions we use in the various
wireFormats are like working specs.   I just wanted to capture this in some
sort of documentation.

For example, for wireFormat.jmsObject we've decided in the code to:
* map input parameters to an Object[]
* map outputs to a single Object (not an Object[])

This reflects an interface.java view that fits right along with a
Java-centric format like this one.

----

On the subject of wireFormat.jmsObject, I was wondering if anyone had an
opinion on the idea of adding similar support as the JMS default wireformat
for passing through un-transformed a jms Message to an operation taking a
single Message as parameter?    On the one hand, it's clearly not
necessary... the default wireFormat should be sufficient. I was just
wondering if it's more user-friendly to be liberal in supporting this over
various wireFormats as opposed to having more clearly-distinguished behavior
among them.

----

(It also might be interesting to consider & work through what we would do if
we supported an interface.wsdl with multiple outputs, but I'm getting ahead
of myself now).

I was thinking of maybe adding some sections here to describe this:
*http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Databinding+Scope*

Or would anyone suggest a better place?

Thanks,Scott