You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-dev@axis.apache.org by Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> on 2005/06/28 14:41:32 UTC
[Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Hi All;
After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
mail jar for normal execution.
Is that Accceptable?
If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
Thanks
Srinath
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Check 1.X, it's better to look for it at startup time and flag it and
then check the flag later on.
On 6/28/05, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes Dims I think it is possible .. still it invlove throwing a
> execption (Class not found )and catching it, which is a perfomance
> killer! So I am bit worried.
>
> But may be it is best we can have .. at least for the time been!
> Thanks
> Srinath
>
>
> On 6/28/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is is possible to use reflection to let things work even w/o those
> > jars. like Axis 1.X?
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 6/28/05, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi All;
> > >
> > > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> > >
> > > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> > >
> > > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > > mail jar for normal execution.
> > >
> > > Is that Accceptable?
> > >
> > > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Srinath
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>.
Yes Dims I think it is possible .. still it invlove throwing a
execption (Class not found )and catching it, which is a perfomance
killer! So I am bit worried.
But may be it is best we can have .. at least for the time been!
Thanks
Srinath
On 6/28/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is is possible to use reflection to let things work even w/o those
> jars. like Axis 1.X?
>
> -- dims
>
> On 6/28/05, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All;
> >
> > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> >
> > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> >
> > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > mail jar for normal execution.
> >
> > Is that Accceptable?
> >
> > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> >
> > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Srinath
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Is is possible to use reflection to let things work even w/o those
jars. like Axis 1.X?
-- dims
On 6/28/05, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All;
>
> After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
>
> 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
>
> that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> mail jar for normal execution.
>
> Is that Accceptable?
>
> If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
>
> What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
>
> Thanks
> Srinath
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Please submit a test case for them as well.
-- dims
On 6/28/05, Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow.... I'll check on this GNU thing....
> Also Abt Gerenimo I checked the sources two weeks back. Wat i found is they
> still haven't fixed the issue with DataHandlers. I'll put a JIRA issue.
>
> regards,
> ~Thilina
>
>
> On 6/28/05, Fernando Nasser <fn...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Latest AXIS 1.2.x is also working perfectly well with GNU Classpathx
> > Mail (1.1.1) and JAF. Another AppServer passed TCK certification using
> > this combination. It passed before with Sun RI of JavaMail too.
> >
> > So the code in AXIS works fine with any of them.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Fernando
> >
> >
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > Thilina,
> > >
> > > We can get people to fix the geronimo impl. IF we tell them what is
> > > broken. FYI, latest Axis 1.X is ok with geronimo's jars.
> > >
> > > -- dims
> > >
> > > On 6/28/05, Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi,
> > >>For the Axis2 to compile and work without attachments we earliar decided
> to
> > >>use Gerenimo spec Java Mail & Activation. (It's like having a set of
> > >>interfaces, cause those impl's are not functioning correctly at this
> moment)
> > >>Those two jars are respectively 95kb and 19 kb.
> > >>But attachments will *not* work with them. Only others will work.
> > >>
> > >>IMHO Axis 1.x uses these Java mail & Activation optionally cause Sun
> does
> > >>not allow others to keep them in downloadable places (eg: Mavan Repo).
> But
> > >>if Gerenimo impl turn out well we don;t have that prob.
> > >>On the other hand with MTOM we are tightely bounding the Binary stuff to
> OM.
> > >>Where in 1.x it's only SwA which can be handled at transport levels
> making
> > >>the things simpler to switch. IMHO if we need to have MTOM tightely
> > >>integrated then we have to pay the price of the size of two jars.
> > >>
> > >>I just wonder hows the situation with SAAJ & SMTP with this problem.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks & Regards,
> > >>~Thilina
> > >>
> > >>PS: I'm working hard to make the dependancy only with Java Activation.
> (Even
> > >>Sun's Activation impl is 54kb). Lets hope for the best. :)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> > >>>dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
> > >>>
> > >>>Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> > >>>that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> > >>>doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> > >>>switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
> > >>>
> > >>>class OmOutput {
> > >>>private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
> > >>>
> > >>>..
> > >>>}
> > >>>
> > >>>now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> > >>>SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
> > >>>
> > >>>s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
> > >>>
> > >>>BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> > >>>belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
> > >>>
> > >>>Sanjiva.
> > >>>
> > >>>On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hi All;
> > >>>>
> > >>>>After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> > >>>>
> > >>>>1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > >>>>2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> > >>>>
> > >>>>that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > >>>>mail jar for normal execution.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Is that Accceptable?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > >>>>fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > >>>>for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Thanks
> > >>>>Srinath
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>
> > >>"May the SourcE be with u"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Fernando Nasser
> > Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
> > 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
> > Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> "May the SourcE be with u"
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com>.
Wow.... I'll check on this GNU thing....
Also Abt Gerenimo I checked the sources two weeks back. Wat i found is they
still haven't fixed the issue with DataHandlers. I'll put a JIRA issue.
regards,
~Thilina
On 6/28/05, Fernando Nasser <fn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Latest AXIS 1.2.x is also working perfectly well with GNU Classpathx
> Mail (1.1.1) and JAF. Another AppServer passed TCK certification using
> this combination. It passed before with Sun RI of JavaMail too.
>
> So the code in AXIS works fine with any of them.
>
> Regards,
> Fernando
>
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Thilina,
> >
> > We can get people to fix the geronimo impl. IF we tell them what is
> > broken. FYI, latest Axis 1.X is ok with geronimo's jars.
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 6/28/05, Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>For the Axis2 to compile and work without attachments we earliar decided
> to
> >>use Gerenimo spec Java Mail & Activation. (It's like having a set of
> >>interfaces, cause those impl's are not functioning correctly at this
> moment)
> >>Those two jars are respectively 95kb and 19 kb.
> >>But attachments will *not* work with them. Only others will work.
> >>
> >>IMHO Axis 1.x uses these Java mail & Activation optionally cause Sun
> does
> >>not allow others to keep them in downloadable places (eg: Mavan Repo).
> But
> >>if Gerenimo impl turn out well we don;t have that prob.
> >>On the other hand with MTOM we are tightely bounding the Binary stuff to
> OM.
> >>Where in 1.x it's only SwA which can be handled at transport levels
> making
> >>the things simpler to switch. IMHO if we need to have MTOM tightely
> >>integrated then we have to pay the price of the size of two jars.
> >>
> >>I just wonder hows the situation with SAAJ & SMTP with this problem.
> >>
> >>Thanks & Regards,
> >>~Thilina
> >>
> >>PS: I'm working hard to make the dependancy only with Java Activation.
> (Even
> >>Sun's Activation impl is 54kb). Lets hope for the best. :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> >>>dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
> >>>
> >>>Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> >>>that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> >>>doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> >>>switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
> >>>
> >>>class OmOutput {
> >>>private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
> >>>
> >>>..
> >>>}
> >>>
> >>>now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> >>>SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
> >>>
> >>>s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
> >>>
> >>>BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> >>>belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
> >>>
> >>>Sanjiva.
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hi All;
> >>>>
> >>>>After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> >>>>
> >>>>1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> >>>>2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> >>>>
> >>>>that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> >>>>mail jar for normal execution.
> >>>>
> >>>>Is that Accceptable?
> >>>>
> >>>>If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> >>>>fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> >>>>
> >>>>What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> >>>>for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks
> >>>>Srinath
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>"May the SourcE be with u"
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Fernando Nasser
> Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
> 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
> Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
>
--
"May the SourcE be with u"
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Fernando Nasser <fn...@redhat.com>.
Latest AXIS 1.2.x is also working perfectly well with GNU Classpathx
Mail (1.1.1) and JAF. Another AppServer passed TCK certification using
this combination. It passed before with Sun RI of JavaMail too.
So the code in AXIS works fine with any of them.
Regards,
Fernando
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Thilina,
>
> We can get people to fix the geronimo impl. IF we tell them what is
> broken. FYI, latest Axis 1.X is ok with geronimo's jars.
>
> -- dims
>
> On 6/28/05, Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>For the Axis2 to compile and work without attachments we earliar decided to
>>use Gerenimo spec Java Mail & Activation. (It's like having a set of
>>interfaces, cause those impl's are not functioning correctly at this moment)
>>Those two jars are respectively 95kb and 19 kb.
>>But attachments will *not* work with them. Only others will work.
>>
>>IMHO Axis 1.x uses these Java mail & Activation optionally cause Sun does
>>not allow others to keep them in downloadable places (eg: Mavan Repo). But
>>if Gerenimo impl turn out well we don;t have that prob.
>>On the other hand with MTOM we are tightely bounding the Binary stuff to OM.
>>Where in 1.x it's only SwA which can be handled at transport levels making
>>the things simpler to switch. IMHO if we need to have MTOM tightely
>>integrated then we have to pay the price of the size of two jars.
>>
>>I just wonder hows the situation with SAAJ & SMTP with this problem.
>>
>>Thanks & Regards,
>>~Thilina
>>
>>PS: I'm working hard to make the dependancy only with Java Activation. (Even
>>Sun's Activation impl is 54kb). Lets hope for the best. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
>>
>>>Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
>>>dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
>>>
>>>Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
>>>that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
>>>doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
>>>switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
>>>
>>>class OmOutput {
>>>private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
>>>
>>>..
>>>}
>>>
>>>now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
>>>SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
>>>
>>>s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
>>>
>>>BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
>>>belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
>>>
>>>Sanjiva.
>>>
>>>On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi All;
>>>>
>>>>After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
>>>>
>>>>1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
>>>>2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
>>>>
>>>>that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
>>>>mail jar for normal execution.
>>>>
>>>>Is that Accceptable?
>>>>
>>>>If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
>>>>fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
>>>>
>>>>What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
>>>>for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>>Srinath
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>"May the SourcE be with u"
>
>
>
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Thilina,
We can get people to fix the geronimo impl. IF we tell them what is
broken. FYI, latest Axis 1.X is ok with geronimo's jars.
-- dims
On 6/28/05, Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> For the Axis2 to compile and work without attachments we earliar decided to
> use Gerenimo spec Java Mail & Activation. (It's like having a set of
> interfaces, cause those impl's are not functioning correctly at this moment)
> Those two jars are respectively 95kb and 19 kb.
> But attachments will *not* work with them. Only others will work.
>
> IMHO Axis 1.x uses these Java mail & Activation optionally cause Sun does
> not allow others to keep them in downloadable places (eg: Mavan Repo). But
> if Gerenimo impl turn out well we don;t have that prob.
> On the other hand with MTOM we are tightely bounding the Binary stuff to OM.
> Where in 1.x it's only SwA which can be handled at transport levels making
> the things simpler to switch. IMHO if we need to have MTOM tightely
> integrated then we have to pay the price of the size of two jars.
>
> I just wonder hows the situation with SAAJ & SMTP with this problem.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> ~Thilina
>
> PS: I'm working hard to make the dependancy only with Java Activation. (Even
> Sun's Activation impl is 54kb). Lets hope for the best. :)
>
>
>
> On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> > dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
> >
> > Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> > that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> > doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> > switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
> >
> > class OmOutput {
> > private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
> >
> > ..
> > }
> >
> > now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> > SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
> >
> > s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
> >
> > BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> > belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > Hi All;
> > >
> > > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> > >
> > > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> > >
> > > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > > mail jar for normal execution.
> > >
> > > Is that Accceptable?
> > >
> > > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Srinath
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> "May the SourcE be with u"
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
For the Axis2 to compile and work without attachments we earliar decided to
use Gerenimo spec Java Mail & Activation. (It's like having a set of
interfaces, cause those impl's are not functioning correctly at this moment)
Those two jars are respectively 95kb and 19 kb.
But attachments will *not* work with them. Only others will work.
IMHO Axis 1.x uses these Java mail & Activation optionally cause Sun does
not allow others to keep them in downloadable places (eg: Mavan Repo). But
if Gerenimo impl turn out well we don;t have that prob.
On the other hand with MTOM we are tightely bounding the Binary stuff to OM.
Where in 1.x it's only SwA which can be handled at transport levels making
the things simpler to switch. IMHO if we need to have MTOM tightely
integrated then we have to pay the price of the size of two jars.
I just wonder hows the situation with SAAJ & SMTP with this problem.
Thanks & Regards,
~Thilina
PS: I'm working hard to make the dependancy only with Java Activation.
(Even Sun's Activation impl is 54kb). Lets hope for the best. :)
On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
>
> Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
>
> Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
>
> class OmOutput {
> private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
>
> ..
> }
>
> now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
>
> s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
>
> BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > Hi All;
> >
> > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> >
> > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> >
> > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > mail jar for normal execution.
> >
> > Is that Accceptable?
> >
> > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> >
> > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Srinath
> >
>
>
--
"May the SourcE be with u"
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>.
Thilina we do not tired to remove the dependancy from the core module
.. core module is not actually "Axis2 core" .. it so heavy. SMTP is
not in the "Axis Core", but OMOutPut indeed in it. I want to do normal
http unoptimized messgeing with least number of jars.
Thanks
Srinath
On 6/29/05, Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the moment I just seperated the JavaMail dependent code parts of
> OMOutput to a Util class which contains bunch of stateless methodes. Now
> OMOutput will work without having JavaMail on the classpath.
>
> After doing it I found a huge depedency on JavaMail from SMTP transport
> (core module - when i tried to remove the dependency). Seems we cannot get
> rid of the Beast ;-)
>
> I'll look in to the final boolean flag & reflection.
>
> regards,
> ~Thilina
>
> On 6/28/05, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To Sum from all I like to purpose following
> >
> > 1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
> > dependancy in the compile time
> > 2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
> > classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
> >
> > I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that
> > pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
> > do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Srinath
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana < sanjiva@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > > Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> > > dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
> > >
> > > Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> > > that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> > > doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> > > switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
> > >
> > > class OmOutput {
> > > private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
> > >
> > > ..
> > > }
> > >
> > > now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> > > SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
> > >
> > > s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
> > >
> > > BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> > > belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > > Hi All;
> > > >
> > > > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> > > >
> > > > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > > > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> > > >
> > > > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > > > mail jar for normal execution.
> > > >
> > > > Is that Accceptable?
> > > >
> > > > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > > > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> > > >
> > > > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > > > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Srinath
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> "May the SourcE be with u"
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com>.
For the moment I just seperated the JavaMail dependent code parts of
OMOutput to a Util class which contains bunch of stateless methodes. Now
OMOutput will work without having JavaMail on the classpath.
After doing it I found a huge depedency on JavaMail from SMTP transport
(core module - when i tried to remove the dependency). Seems we cannot get
rid of the Beast ;-)
I'll look in to the final boolean flag & reflection.
regards,
~Thilina
On 6/28/05, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To Sum from all I like to purpose following
>
> 1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
> dependancy in the compile time
> 2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
> classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
>
> I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that
> pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
> do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
>
> Thanks
> Srinath
>
>
>
> On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> > dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
> >
> > Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> > that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> > doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> > switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
> >
> > class OmOutput {
> > private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
> >
> > ..
> > }
> >
> > now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> > SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
> >
> > s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
> >
> > BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> > belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > Hi All;
> > >
> > > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> > >
> > > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> > >
> > > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > > mail jar for normal execution.
> > >
> > > Is that Accceptable?
> > >
> > > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Srinath
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
"May the SourcE be with u"
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com>.
+1
Can we differ this to 1.0.
I would like to have Attachment (MTOM & SwA) stuff integrated ASAP before
looking at this.
Is it OK with all???
On 6/29/05, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On 6/29/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > I think with MTOM married to OM and the resulting nice programming model
> > we've created the default needs to be to have XOP and SwA support turned
> > on by default. The technique I suggested would allow someone who wants
> > to remove it (say someone strictly supporting WS-I BP without SwA) to
> > rebuild Axis2 and to not have the extra Jars around.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 07:56 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > I tried to have both your and dims puposal merged. what I tried to
> > > achive is put a static block so the code is removed by compiler if it
> > > is false. But We keep it default to true, (Axis2 code based build with
> > > it set to true) then the classloading thingy to make normal axis2 jar
> > > we distribute with bin dist to work even mail jar is not around. It is
> > > just the expectations out of code ..I am fine with just static, just
> > > reflection or both..
> > >
> > > On 6/29/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 19:27 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > > > To Sum from all I like to purpose following
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
> > > > > dependancy in the compile time
> > > > > 2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
> > > > > classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
> > > >
> > > > No no .. that's not what I was suggesting .. put the flag and
> because
> > > > its a static flag the compiler will not even put the other code in;
> it
> > > > simply cannot run. So no need to do reflection - just put it wrapped
> > > > around a static const and then the class will load just fine without
> the
> > > > JavaMail and Activation jars being around at runtime.
> > > >
> > > > > I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory
> that
> > > > > pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly.
> And
> > > > > do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
> > > >
> > > > ??? OMOutput has nothing depending on the OM implementation .. what
> are
> > > > the different OMOutput implementations doing thru this factory?
> > > >
> > > > -1 until proven wrong :).
> > > One OMOutput impl depend on the java mail and other that do not depend
> > > on the java mail .
> > > But may be we can relay on the class loading with one impl.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Srinath
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
"May the SourcE be with u"
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 6/29/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> I think with MTOM married to OM and the resulting nice programming model
> we've created the default needs to be to have XOP and SwA support turned
> on by default. The technique I suggested would allow someone who wants
> to remove it (say someone strictly supporting WS-I BP without SwA) to
> rebuild Axis2 and to not have the extra Jars around.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 07:56 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > I tried to have both your and dims puposal merged. what I tried to
> > achive is put a static block so the code is removed by compiler if it
> > is false. But We keep it default to true, (Axis2 code based build with
> > it set to true) then the classloading thingy to make normal axis2 jar
> > we distribute with bin dist to work even mail jar is not around. It is
> > just the expectations out of code ..I am fine with just static, just
> > reflection or both..
> >
> > On 6/29/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 19:27 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > > To Sum from all I like to purpose following
> > > >
> > > > 1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
> > > > dependancy in the compile time
> > > > 2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
> > > > classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
> > >
> > > No no .. that's not what I was suggesting .. put the flag and because
> > > its a static flag the compiler will not even put the other code in; it
> > > simply cannot run. So no need to do reflection - just put it wrapped
> > > around a static const and then the class will load just fine without the
> > > JavaMail and Activation jars being around at runtime.
> > >
> > > > I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that
> > > > pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
> > > > do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
> > >
> > > ??? OMOutput has nothing depending on the OM implementation .. what are
> > > the different OMOutput implementations doing thru this factory?
> > >
> > > -1 until proven wrong :).
> > One OMOutput impl depend on the java mail and other that do not depend
> > on the java mail .
> > But may be we can relay on the class loading with one impl.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Srinath
> >
>
>
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it
Acceptable?]
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
I think with MTOM married to OM and the resulting nice programming model
we've created the default needs to be to have XOP and SwA support turned
on by default. The technique I suggested would allow someone who wants
to remove it (say someone strictly supporting WS-I BP without SwA) to
rebuild Axis2 and to not have the extra Jars around.
Sanjiva.
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 07:56 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> I tried to have both your and dims puposal merged. what I tried to
> achive is put a static block so the code is removed by compiler if it
> is false. But We keep it default to true, (Axis2 code based build with
> it set to true) then the classloading thingy to make normal axis2 jar
> we distribute with bin dist to work even mail jar is not around. It is
> just the expectations out of code ..I am fine with just static, just
> reflection or both..
>
> On 6/29/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 19:27 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > > To Sum from all I like to purpose following
> > >
> > > 1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
> > > dependancy in the compile time
> > > 2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
> > > classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
> >
> > No no .. that's not what I was suggesting .. put the flag and because
> > its a static flag the compiler will not even put the other code in; it
> > simply cannot run. So no need to do reflection - just put it wrapped
> > around a static const and then the class will load just fine without the
> > JavaMail and Activation jars being around at runtime.
> >
> > > I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that
> > > pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
> > > do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
> >
> > ??? OMOutput has nothing depending on the OM implementation .. what are
> > the different OMOutput implementations doing thru this factory?
> >
> > -1 until proven wrong :).
> One OMOutput impl depend on the java mail and other that do not depend
> on the java mail .
> But may be we can relay on the class loading with one impl.
>
> Thanks
> Srinath
>
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>.
I tried to have both your and dims puposal merged. what I tried to
achive is put a static block so the code is removed by compiler if it
is false. But We keep it default to true, (Axis2 code based build with
it set to true) then the classloading thingy to make normal axis2 jar
we distribute with bin dist to work even mail jar is not around. It is
just the expectations out of code ..I am fine with just static, just
reflection or both..
On 6/29/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 19:27 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > To Sum from all I like to purpose following
> >
> > 1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
> > dependancy in the compile time
> > 2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
> > classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
>
> No no .. that's not what I was suggesting .. put the flag and because
> its a static flag the compiler will not even put the other code in; it
> simply cannot run. So no need to do reflection - just put it wrapped
> around a static const and then the class will load just fine without the
> JavaMail and Activation jars being around at runtime.
>
> > I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that
> > pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
> > do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
>
> ??? OMOutput has nothing depending on the OM implementation .. what are
> the different OMOutput implementations doing thru this factory?
>
> -1 until proven wrong :).
One OMOutput impl depend on the java mail and other that do not depend
on the java mail .
But may be we can relay on the class loading with one impl.
Thanks
Srinath
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it
Acceptable?]
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 19:27 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> To Sum from all I like to purpose following
>
> 1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
> dependancy in the compile time
> 2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
> classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
No no .. that's not what I was suggesting .. put the flag and because
its a static flag the compiler will not even put the other code in; it
simply cannot run. So no need to do reflection - just put it wrapped
around a static const and then the class will load just fine without the
JavaMail and Activation jars being around at runtime.
> I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that
> pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
> do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
??? OMOutput has nothing depending on the OM implementation .. what are
the different OMOutput implementations doing thru this factory?
-1 until proven wrong :).
Sanjiva.
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>.
To Sum from all I like to purpose following
1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
dependancy in the compile time
2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that
pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
Thanks
Srinath
On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
>
> Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
>
> class OmOutput {
> private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
>
> ..
> }
>
> now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
>
> s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
>
> BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > Hi All;
> >
> > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> >
> > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> >
> > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > mail jar for normal execution.
> >
> > Is that Accceptable?
> >
> > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> >
> > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Srinath
> >
>
>
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it Acceptable?]
Posted by Thilina Gunarathne <cs...@gmail.com>.
> s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
>
> BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
+1
Re: [Axis2]OMOutput and the dependancy on Java Mail jar [Is it
Acceptable?]
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
class OmOutput {
private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
..
}
now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
Sanjiva.
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> Hi All;
>
> After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
>
> 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
>
> that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> mail jar for normal execution.
>
> Is that Accceptable?
>
> If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
>
> What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
>
> Thanks
> Srinath
>