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 Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> on 2005/02/15 03:43:09 UTC
[Axis2] Modules - Random thought
Can we call them "blocks"? (instead of modules?)
-- dims
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: [Axis2] Modules - Random thought
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
I have to agree with Glen .. I thought we came up with the module
term because of the SOAP Module analogy too!
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Daniels" <gl...@thoughtcraft.com>
To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Axis2] Modules - Random thought
> But the point is that Axis Modules are precisely the implementation of
> SOAP Modules! "Block" in SOAP parlance refers to a single header
> element, which is too fine a granularity for the thing we're talking
> about here. A typical Module may process lots of different header
> blocks, as well as affecting WSDL generation, understanding policy
> assertions, etc.
>
> -1 to the changed terminology.
>
> --Glen
>
> P.S. Curious - why would you want to avoid the SOAP Module terminology?
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > I thought of trying to avoid the soap module terminology. my 2 cents,
> > I think block will work for both #1 and #2.
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:21:36 +0600, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >>1) if the module is just a packaing of the Handler for usability
> >>purposes am +1 for name it blocks
> >>2) I think Module is littel bit more than that, for an example I would
> >>like to have ability to have Service ref a module and have it enabled
> >>as the j2ee does.
> >>e.g.
> >><service name="foo">
> >> <module ref="Authentication"/>
> >></service>
> >>then the service foo has the authentication enabled.
> >>
> >>In the context of #2 I feel module make more sense .. thoughts?
> >>Thanks
> >>Srianth
> >>
> >>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:09 -0500, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>>Can we call them "blocks"? (instead of modules?)
> >>>
> >>>-- dims
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [Axis2] Modules - Random thought
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
It was a "Random Thought" :)
-- dims
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:53:22 -0500, Glen Daniels <gl...@thoughtcraft.com> wrote:
> But the point is that Axis Modules are precisely the implementation of
> SOAP Modules! "Block" in SOAP parlance refers to a single header
> element, which is too fine a granularity for the thing we're talking
> about here. A typical Module may process lots of different header
> blocks, as well as affecting WSDL generation, understanding policy
> assertions, etc.
>
> -1 to the changed terminology.
>
> --Glen
>
> P.S. Curious - why would you want to avoid the SOAP Module terminology?
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > I thought of trying to avoid the soap module terminology. my 2 cents,
> > I think block will work for both #1 and #2.
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:21:36 +0600, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>1) if the module is just a packaing of the Handler for usability
> >>purposes am +1 for name it blocks
> >>2) I think Module is littel bit more than that, for an example I would
> >>like to have ability to have Service ref a module and have it enabled
> >>as the j2ee does.
> >>e.g.
> >><service name="foo">
> >> <module ref="Authentication"/>
> >></service>
> >>then the service foo has the authentication enabled.
> >>
> >>In the context of #2 I feel module make more sense .. thoughts?
> >>Thanks
> >>Srianth
> >>
> >>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:09 -0500, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Can we call them "blocks"? (instead of modules?)
> >>>
> >>>-- dims
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: [Axis2] Modules - Random thought
Posted by Glen Daniels <gl...@thoughtcraft.com>.
But the point is that Axis Modules are precisely the implementation of
SOAP Modules! "Block" in SOAP parlance refers to a single header
element, which is too fine a granularity for the thing we're talking
about here. A typical Module may process lots of different header
blocks, as well as affecting WSDL generation, understanding policy
assertions, etc.
-1 to the changed terminology.
--Glen
P.S. Curious - why would you want to avoid the SOAP Module terminology?
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> I thought of trying to avoid the soap module terminology. my 2 cents,
> I think block will work for both #1 and #2.
>
> -- dims
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:21:36 +0600, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>1) if the module is just a packaing of the Handler for usability
>>purposes am +1 for name it blocks
>>2) I think Module is littel bit more than that, for an example I would
>>like to have ability to have Service ref a module and have it enabled
>>as the j2ee does.
>>e.g.
>><service name="foo">
>> <module ref="Authentication"/>
>></service>
>>then the service foo has the authentication enabled.
>>
>>In the context of #2 I feel module make more sense .. thoughts?
>>Thanks
>>Srianth
>>
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:09 -0500, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Can we call them "blocks"? (instead of modules?)
>>>
>>>-- dims
>>>
>>>--
>>>Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [Axis2] Modules - Random thought
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
I thought of trying to avoid the soap module terminology. my 2 cents,
I think block will work for both #1 and #2.
-- dims
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:21:36 +0600, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) if the module is just a packaing of the Handler for usability
> purposes am +1 for name it blocks
> 2) I think Module is littel bit more than that, for an example I would
> like to have ability to have Service ref a module and have it enabled
> as the j2ee does.
> e.g.
> <service name="foo">
> <module ref="Authentication"/>
> </service>
> then the service foo has the authentication enabled.
>
> In the context of #2 I feel module make more sense .. thoughts?
> Thanks
> Srianth
>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:09 -0500, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can we call them "blocks"? (instead of modules?)
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: [Axis2] Modules - Random thought
Posted by Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>.
1) if the module is just a packaing of the Handler for usability
purposes am +1 for name it blocks
2) I think Module is littel bit more than that, for an example I would
like to have ability to have Service ref a module and have it enabled
as the j2ee does.
e.g.
<service name="foo">
<module ref="Authentication"/>
</service>
then the service foo has the authentication enabled.
In the context of #2 I feel module make more sense .. thoughts?
Thanks
Srianth
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:09 -0500, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we call them "blocks"? (instead of modules?)
>
> -- dims
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
>