incubator-stonehenge-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ben Dewey (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-88) Use SEC value to remove unnecessary bindings in .NET
Date Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:32:14 GMT


Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-88:


This is great, I think we should get rid of the wsHttpBinding anyways(STONEHENGE-58).  

My vote is for #1.  

My only concern is that if some new implementation comes in and has trouble connecting to
the existing basic/custom bindings what can they do?  Although, I'm not that concerned, because
IMHO web services should be bound by the rule that they can't modify the host.  Otherwise
every one-off binding would have to be created on all the hosts to support edge-cases.

So, my vote is still for #1.

> Use SEC value to remove unnecessary bindings in .NET
> ----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: STONEHENGE-88
>                 URL:
>             Project: Stonehenge
>          Issue Type: Wish
>            Reporter: Avantika Agrawal
>            Priority: Minor
> It would be nice to use the SEC value from the database with a single custom binding
(for all the different stacks), rather than have bindngs for each stack individually. This
would make the code easier to follow, as well. 
> There are several ways we could approach this problem:
> 1 - Have a basic and a sec binding in the App.config files and select between the two
of these uses the boolean SEC value specified in the SERVICE table. This means that the implementations
have to use only these bindings - no options
> 2 - Implementations can use whatever binding they want as long as its in the Config file.
This means that the SEC value will be a string and it will be used to select between the different
bindings. This allows for more than two bindings - there can be custom bindings for certain
stacks, but this may introduce the same complexity that we currently have.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message