You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to c-dev@axis.apache.org by Dinesh Premalal <xy...@gmail.com> on 2007/05/28 06:22:32 UTC
Using Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C (was Re: [Axis2]Local Transport Implementation.)
Hi Sanjaya,
sanjayak@wso2.com writes:
> Hi Dinesh,
>
> If it is a local transport I should be able to make use of it without an
> http server. In the design of Axis2 the http protocol is treated as
> another transport, if I am not mistaken. So having to run an http server
> to make use the local transport doesn't sound right somatically.
Well...I think ,I confused everyone :) , by using name Local
Transport. When both server and client in same machine there is a
performance improvement using Unix Domain Sockets [1].
If we are going to use Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C, definitely
there should be a server to listen up for incoming localhost
connections [2]. Therefore My suggestion was extend axis2_http_server
functionality for Unix Domain Sockets with a parameter in axis2.xml.
Theoretically there is a performance gain in using Unix Domain Sockets
in local transport. I'm not sure whether there is a practical
performance gain.
thanks,
Dinesh
1. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2005-February/001143.html
2. http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~beej/guide/ipc/usock.html
--
Dinesh Premalal
http://xydinesh.wordpress.com
GPG ID : A255955C
GPG Key Finger Print : C481 E5D4 C27E DC34 9257 0229 4F44 266E A255 955C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [Axis2] Next Release 1.1.0?
Posted by Manjula Peiris <ma...@wso2.com>.
+1 for a realease.
But before the release some bug fixing and a proper way of freeing
neethi_assertion has to be done.
-Manjula.
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 11:55 +0600, Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> We apparently did not get any serious bugs reported against 1.0.0
> release. So IMHO, there is no immediate need for a 1.0.1.
>
> In the mean time, we have progressed with more new features, especially,
> we have the WS-Policy implementation integrated to the Axis2/C main svn
> trunk. Hence I thin, as per our versioning guidelines, we should be
> calling that 1.1.0. Given that WS-Policy is a useful addition to
> Axis2/C's WS-* support, I think we should release it early.
>
> Thoughts please...
>
> Samisa...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Sahan Gamage <sa...@gmail.com>.
On 6/13/07, Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com> wrote:
>
> We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
> - WS-Policy implementation
> - WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
> - Porting to Solaris and MacOS
> - Some bug fixes
>
> - We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by
> Supun.
>
> So thoughts please...
+1 for the 1.1.0 release
If we agree on 1.1.0, I could volunteer to be the release manager,
> of course provided that there is no competition ;)
+1 for Samisa as the release manager
Thanks,
> Samisa...
Thanks
-sahan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Dinesh Premalal <xy...@gmail.com>.
Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com> writes:
> We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
> - WS-Policy implementation
> - WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
> - Porting to Solaris and MacOS
> - Some bug fixes
>
> - We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by Supun.
+1
> If we agree on 1.1.0, I could volunteer to be the release manager,
> of course provided that there is no competition ;)
+1
thanks,
Dinesh
--
Dinesh Premalal
http://xydinesh.wordpress.com
GPG ID : A255955C
GPG Key Finger Print : C481 E5D4 C27E DC34 9257 0229 4F44 266E A255 955C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Kaushalye Kapuruge <ka...@wso2.com>.
+1 for the 1.1.0 and Samisa as the release mgr. :)
-Kau
Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
> - WS-Policy implementation
> - WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
> - Porting to Solaris and MacOS
> - Some bug fixes
>
> - We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by
> Supun.
>
> So thoughts please...
> If we agree on 1.1.0, I could volunteer to be the release manager,
> of course provided that there is no competition ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Samisa...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Nandika Jayawardana <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the release.
Nandika
On 6/14/07, Manjula Peiris <ma...@wso2.com> wrote:
>
> I have also fix some memory leaks in WS-Policy implementation and
> WS-SecurityPolicy extension.
>
> So +1 for the release and Samisa as the release manager.
>
> Thanks
> -Manjula
>
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:38 +0600, Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> > We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
> > - WS-Policy implementation
> > - WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
> > - Porting to Solaris and MacOS
> > - Some bug fixes
> >
> > - We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by
> Supun.
> >
> > So thoughts please...
> > If we agree on 1.1.0, I could volunteer to be the release manager,
> > of course provided that there is no competition ;)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Samisa...
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
nandika@wso2.com
WSO2 Inc: http://www.wso2.com
Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Manjula Peiris <ma...@wso2.com>.
I have also fix some memory leaks in WS-Policy implementation and
WS-SecurityPolicy extension.
So +1 for the release and Samisa as the release manager.
Thanks
-Manjula
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 15:38 +0600, Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
> - WS-Policy implementation
> - WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
> - Porting to Solaris and MacOS
> - Some bug fixes
>
> - We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by Supun.
>
> So thoughts please...
> If we agree on 1.1.0, I could volunteer to be the release manager,
> of course provided that there is no competition ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Samisa...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Damitha Kumarage <da...@gmail.com>.
Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
> - WS-Policy implementation
> - WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
> - Porting to Solaris and MacOS
> - Some bug fixes
>
> - We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by
> Supun.
>
> So thoughts please...
>
+1 for 1.1.0
Damitha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Milinda Pathirage <mi...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the 1.1.0 release, release manager, also +1 for the guththila
improvements.
Milinda..
--
milinda@wso2.com
WSO2, Inc: http://www.wso2.com "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform"
http://www.milindalakmal.wordpress.com
On 6/13/07, Dumindu Pallewela <du...@wso2.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for the release and release manager.
>
> -Dumindu.
>
> Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> > We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
> > - WS-Policy implementation
> > - WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
> > - Porting to Solaris and MacOS
> > - Some bug fixes
> >
> > - We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by
> Supun.
> >
> > So thoughts please...
> > If we agree on 1.1.0, I could volunteer to be the release manager, of
> > course provided that there is no competition ;)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Samisa...
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Dumindu Pallewela <du...@wso2.com>.
+1 for the release and release manager.
-Dumindu.
Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
> - WS-Policy implementation
> - WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
> - Porting to Solaris and MacOS
> - Some bug fixes
>
> - We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by Supun.
>
> So thoughts please...
> If we agree on 1.1.0, I could volunteer to be the release manager, of
> course provided that there is no competition ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Samisa...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
[Axis2] Time for 1.1.0 Release?
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com>.
We have some major improvements that is worth releasing:
- WS-Policy implementation
- WS-SecurityPolicy extentson
- Porting to Solaris and MacOS
- Some bug fixes
- We may also be able to get the improved Guththila code done by Supun.
So thoughts please...
If we agree on 1.1.0, I could volunteer to be the release manager,
of course provided that there is no competition ;)
Thanks,
Samisa...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [Axis2] Next Release 1.1.0?
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@gmail.com>.
Dinesh Premalal wrote:
> Hi,
> Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com> writes:
>
>
>> We apparently did not get any serious bugs reported against 1.0.0
>> release. So IMHO, there is no immediate need for a 1.0.1.
>>
> Can we presume that there may be Axis2/C 1.0.1 release someother day?
>
Yes you can. We have the 1.0.0 branch, and as we discussed in another
thread some time back, if one wants just a pure patch version of that
branch, we can do a 1.0.1 at any point.
> Do we have any plans to follow Apr version numbering [1]?
>
Yes we do. And I hope doing a 1.1.0 is in line with that. We should not
break ABI/API rules.
For 1.1.0, we would have additional API, but not change/remove current
API. We have to test for ABI of course.
Samisa...
--
Samisa Abeysinghe : http://www.bloglines.com/blog/samisa
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [Axis2] Next Release 1.1.0?
Posted by Dinesh Premalal <xy...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com> writes:
> We apparently did not get any serious bugs reported against 1.0.0
> release. So IMHO, there is no immediate need for a 1.0.1.
Can we presume that there may be Axis2/C 1.0.1 release someother day?
Do we have any plans to follow Apr version numbering [1]?
> In the mean time, we have progressed with more new features,
> especially, we have the WS-Policy implementation integrated to the
> Axis2/C main svn trunk. Hence I thin, as per our versioning
> guidelines, we should be calling that 1.1.0. Given that WS-Policy is a
> useful addition to Axis2/C's WS-* support, I think we should release
> it early.
+1.
thanks,
Dinesh
1.http://marc.info/?l=axis-c-dev&m=117916559532631&w=2
--
Dinesh Premalal
http://xydinesh.wordpress.com
GPG ID : A255955C
GPG Key Finger Print : C481 E5D4 C27E DC34 9257 0229 4F44 266E A255 955C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
[Axis2] Next Release 1.1.0?
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com>.
We apparently did not get any serious bugs reported against 1.0.0
release. So IMHO, there is no immediate need for a 1.0.1.
In the mean time, we have progressed with more new features, especially,
we have the WS-Policy implementation integrated to the Axis2/C main svn
trunk. Hence I thin, as per our versioning guidelines, we should be
calling that 1.1.0. Given that WS-Policy is a useful addition to
Axis2/C's WS-* support, I think we should release it early.
Thoughts please...
Samisa...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Using Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C (was Re: [Axis2]Local Transport Implementation.)
Posted by Dinesh Premalal <xy...@gmail.com>.
Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com> writes:
> Are we going to skip serializing/deserializing of OM trees in use in
> this case? If so how?
Now I'm just replacing internet(AF_INET) sockets with unix domain
sockets(AF_UNIX). I think we will be able to skip
serializing/deserializing stage with Local Transport implementation
using pipes(As Dims mentioned).
thanks,
Dinesh
--
Dinesh Premalal
http://xydinesh.wordpress.com
GPG ID : A255955C
GPG Key Finger Print : C481 E5D4 C27E DC34 9257 0229 4F44 266E A255 955C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Using Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C (was Re: [Axis2]Local
Transport Implementation.)
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com>.
sanjayak@wso2.com wrote:
> Well as far as web services are concerned, OM trees should not be exposed
> to the outside. But I guess this can be treated as a special case here,
> where the client and the server both should be Axis (The practical use
> case I believe).
>
If both client and server are Axis2/C, using OM and not serializing
would give best performance.
If either is not Axis2/C, we got to serialize because OM cannot be
understood by one party. If we want to support both the homogeneous case
as well as heterogeneous case, we may come up with some parameter to
indicate whether to serialize or not.
> In terms of portability I am not sure whether UNIX domain sockets as the
> way to go. In that case it should be pipes. According to POSIX standard,
> pipes are unidirectional. So the standard way to use it is to have two
> pipes one to read and one to write. But in windows and in some UNIX
> implementations they are bi-directional like domain sockets. But that
> doesn't stop you from using it in the standard way which is portable
> across platforms.
>
+1 for pipes. May be we can learn for APR API on how to make it
portable.
(http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/1.2/group__apr__file__io.html#gae3b81342d239c58c351cf11190740ed)
Samisa...
> Thoughts?
>
> /Sanjaya
>
>
>
>> Are we going to skip serializing/deserializing of OM trees in use in
>> this case? If so how?
>>
>> Samisa...
>>
>> Dinesh Premalal wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sanjaya,
>>>
>>> sanjayak@wso2.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Dinesh,
>>>>
>>>> If it is a local transport I should be able to make use of it without
>>>> an
>>>> http server. In the design of Axis2 the http protocol is treated as
>>>> another transport, if I am not mistaken. So having to run an http
>>>> server
>>>> to make use the local transport doesn't sound right somatically.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well...I think ,I confused everyone :) , by using name Local
>>> Transport. When both server and client in same machine there is a
>>> performance improvement using Unix Domain Sockets [1].
>>>
>>> If we are going to use Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C, definitely
>>> there should be a server to listen up for incoming localhost
>>> connections [2]. Therefore My suggestion was extend axis2_http_server
>>> functionality for Unix Domain Sockets with a parameter in axis2.xml.
>>>
>>> Theoretically there is a performance gain in using Unix Domain Sockets
>>> in local transport. I'm not sure whether there is a practical
>>> performance gain.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Dinesh
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2005-February/001143.html
>>> 2. http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~beej/guide/ipc/usock.html
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Samisa Abeysinghe : http://www.wso2.org/ (WSO2 Oxygen Tank - Web Services
>> Developers' Portal)
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
--
Samisa Abeysinghe : http://www.wso2.org/ (WSO2 Oxygen Tank - Web Services Developers' Portal)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Using Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C (was Re: [Axis2]Local
Transport Implementation.)
Posted by sa...@wso2.com.
Well as far as web services are concerned, OM trees should not be exposed
to the outside. But I guess this can be treated as a special case here,
where the client and the server both should be Axis (The practical use
case I believe).
In terms of portability I am not sure whether UNIX domain sockets as the
way to go. In that case it should be pipes. According to POSIX standard,
pipes are unidirectional. So the standard way to use it is to have two
pipes one to read and one to write. But in windows and in some UNIX
implementations they are bi-directional like domain sockets. But that
doesn't stop you from using it in the standard way which is portable
across platforms.
Thoughts?
/Sanjaya
> Are we going to skip serializing/deserializing of OM trees in use in
> this case? If so how?
>
> Samisa...
>
> Dinesh Premalal wrote:
>> Hi Sanjaya,
>>
>> sanjayak@wso2.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Dinesh,
>>>
>>> If it is a local transport I should be able to make use of it without
>>> an
>>> http server. In the design of Axis2 the http protocol is treated as
>>> another transport, if I am not mistaken. So having to run an http
>>> server
>>> to make use the local transport doesn't sound right somatically.
>>>
>> Well...I think ,I confused everyone :) , by using name Local
>> Transport. When both server and client in same machine there is a
>> performance improvement using Unix Domain Sockets [1].
>>
>> If we are going to use Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C, definitely
>> there should be a server to listen up for incoming localhost
>> connections [2]. Therefore My suggestion was extend axis2_http_server
>> functionality for Unix Domain Sockets with a parameter in axis2.xml.
>>
>> Theoretically there is a performance gain in using Unix Domain Sockets
>> in local transport. I'm not sure whether there is a practical
>> performance gain.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Dinesh
>>
>> 1.
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2005-February/001143.html
>> 2. http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~beej/guide/ipc/usock.html
>>
>
>
> --
> Samisa Abeysinghe : http://www.wso2.org/ (WSO2 Oxygen Tank - Web Services
> Developers' Portal)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Using Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C (was Re: [Axis2]Local
Transport Implementation.)
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@wso2.com>.
Are we going to skip serializing/deserializing of OM trees in use in
this case? If so how?
Samisa...
Dinesh Premalal wrote:
> Hi Sanjaya,
>
> sanjayak@wso2.com writes:
>
>
>> Hi Dinesh,
>>
>> If it is a local transport I should be able to make use of it without an
>> http server. In the design of Axis2 the http protocol is treated as
>> another transport, if I am not mistaken. So having to run an http server
>> to make use the local transport doesn't sound right somatically.
>>
> Well...I think ,I confused everyone :) , by using name Local
> Transport. When both server and client in same machine there is a
> performance improvement using Unix Domain Sockets [1].
>
> If we are going to use Unix Domain Sockets with Axis2/C, definitely
> there should be a server to listen up for incoming localhost
> connections [2]. Therefore My suggestion was extend axis2_http_server
> functionality for Unix Domain Sockets with a parameter in axis2.xml.
>
> Theoretically there is a performance gain in using Unix Domain Sockets
> in local transport. I'm not sure whether there is a practical
> performance gain.
>
> thanks,
> Dinesh
>
> 1. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2005-February/001143.html
> 2. http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~beej/guide/ipc/usock.html
>
--
Samisa Abeysinghe : http://www.wso2.org/ (WSO2 Oxygen Tank - Web Services Developers' Portal)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-c-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-c-dev-help@ws.apache.org