[Axis2]Full infoset support

[Ajith Ranabahu <aj...@gmail.com>]

oops Sorry about the unfinished mail. fumbled on the keyboard and
pressed the wrong key accidently!
Ok here is the explanation to my answer

1. YAGNI! Since what we are going to manipulate are SOAP messages we
can safely drop XML information items that are not present in SOAP
messages.

2.It makes things much less complicated than a layered model.(BTW the
current one can also be seen as layered since all soap specific
objects are derived from OMElement)

I would like all you guys to express ideas on this. if you guys think
otherwise, mention of a particular usecase will be very helpful.

-- 
Ajith Ranabahu

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:21:16 +0600, Ajith Ranabahu
<aj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Since this issue was taken up in the last IRC session and ended with
> no conclusion, I suppose we should talks about this seriously and take
> a decision. So I am going to put forward the question in simple terms
> and put up my answer with reasons.
> 
> Q - Do we need full XML infoset support with OM?
> 
> A - No.
> 
> --
> Ajith Ranabahu
>

Re: [Axis2]Full infoset support

[Deepal Jayasinghe <de...@opensource.lk>]

hi all;



I totally agree with Ajith.



And I think the idea of OM came in order to provide or improve the
performance of AXIS , in both memory and speed. So I think if we keep OM
SOAP specific or optimize it for SOAP messages we can achieve those goals,
and I know OM has methods likes getHeaders() and getBody() , providing
direct access to headers and body and if we support full inforset we will
lose those features.



Deepal






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ajith Ranabahu" <aj...@gmail.com>
To: "Axis developer list" <ax...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:33 AM
Subject: [Axis2]Full infoset support


> oops Sorry about the unfinished mail. fumbled on the keyboard and
> pressed the wrong key accidently!
> Ok here is the explanation to my answer
>
> 1. YAGNI! Since what we are going to manipulate are SOAP messages we
> can safely drop XML information items that are not present in SOAP
> messages.
>
> 2.It makes things much less complicated than a layered model.(BTW the
> current one can also be seen as layered since all soap specific
> objects are derived from OMElement)
>
> I would like all you guys to express ideas on this. if you guys think
> otherwise, mention of a particular usecase will be very helpful.
>
> -- 
> Ajith Ranabahu
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:21:16 +0600, Ajith Ranabahu
> <aj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Since this issue was taken up in the last IRC session and ended with
> > no conclusion, I suppose we should talks about this seriously and take
> > a decision. So I am going to put forward the question in simple terms
> > and put up my answer with reasons.
> >
> > Q - Do we need full XML infoset support with OM?
> >
> > A - No.
> >
> > --
> > Ajith Ranabahu
> >
>

RE: [Axis2]Full infoset support

[Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk>]

I agree completely with Ajith.

>>
>>oops Sorry about the unfinished mail. fumbled on the keyboard and
>>pressed the wrong key accidently!
>>Ok here is the explanation to my answer
>>
>>1. YAGNI! Since what we are going to manipulate are SOAP messages we
>>can safely drop XML information items that are not present in SOAP
>>messages.
[Chinthaka] One of the reasons why OM came in to the picture was to support
deferred building for SOAP messages in Axis Engine. So why are we going to
make OM so generic ?
If one need to make OM with full xml infoset support from the current point,
the thing he gonna do will be invane from the point of view of Axis 2. 
For OM to support full infoset, what is missing is DTD support, PI support,
which u will never need for SOAP. 

If we have the idea of making OM, a new XML model, then this is ok. But why
do we need to that ? If we do that, I think we are doing something which is
YAGNI for Axis 2. If we want to make a new object model better than existing
ones, then this will be another project.

>>
>>2.It makes things much less complicated than a layered model.(BTW the
>>current one can also be seen as layered since all soap specific
>>objects are derived from OMElement)
[Chinthaka] I think this is also a good approach. Are we going to support
protocols other than SOAP in Axis 2. I hope not. So making OM, more SOAP
specific is good. Rather than generalizing, I think we can make OM more and
more suitable for our requirements.


Thankx and regards,

Eran Chinthaka
>>
>>I would like all you guys to express ideas on this. if you guys think
>>otherwise, mention of a particular usecase will be very helpful.
>>
>>--
>>Ajith Ranabahu
>>
>>On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:21:16 +0600, Ajith Ranabahu
>><aj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Since this issue was taken up in the last IRC session and ended with
>>> no conclusion, I suppose we should talks about this seriously and take
>>> a decision. So I am going to put forward the question in simple terms
>>> and put up my answer with reasons.
>>>
>>> Q - Do we need full XML infoset support with OM?
>>>
>>> A - No.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ajith Ranabahu
>>>