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 Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk> on 2005/09/08 09:35:17 UTC

Re: [Axis2] AbstractInOutSyncMessageReceiver.receive(MessageContext)

If you can explain a bit more on this problem, hope we can help on 
InOutMessageReceivers.

David Grigglestone wrote:

> Glen suggested I try this list to determine why the implementation of 
> the above method creates a new message context rather than send the 
> original back (my issue being that any properties I set on my original 
> message context are not available later in the code path) .. and if a 
> copy is required, why is this not a complete copy (that would include 
> any user properties that have been set)?
>
> thanks, David
>
>


Re: [Axis2] AbstractInOutSyncMessageReceiver.receive(MessageContext)

Posted by Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk>.
Small correction, Srinath. We don't have "request"/ "response" anymore 
in Axis2, we only have IN / OUT.

A small correction :-)


Srinath Perera wrote:

>David;
>
>If you need *some* properties(that you send at the request flow) to be
>enabled at the response flow set them to the OperationContext (e.g.
>msgctx.getOperationContext()).
>
>Alternatively you can access the request message context via the
>OperationContext as well.
>
>The idea behind this approach is to have a hierarchy of contexts.
>e.g. MessageContext - info about this message context 
>      OperationContext - info about set of related messages for this
>invocation. for an instance two messages in a request-response
>invocation would be kept in a one OperationContext.
>
>You will notice that the properties of the request MC is not necessary
>belongs in the response MC.
>
>read Information model part in the archi guide
>(http://ws.apache.org/axis2/Axis2ArchitectureGuide.html) for the big
>picture
>
>cheers
>Srinath
>
>On 9/8/05, Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk> wrote:
>  
>
>>If you can explain a bit more on this problem, hope we can help on
>>InOutMessageReceivers.
>>
>>David Grigglestone wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Glen suggested I try this list to determine why the implementation of
>>>the above method creates a new message context rather than send the
>>>original back (my issue being that any properties I set on my original
>>>message context are not available later in the code path) .. and if a
>>>copy is required, why is this not a complete copy (that would include
>>>any user properties that have been set)?
>>>
>>>thanks, David
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

Re: [Axis2] AbstractInOutSyncMessageReceiver.receive(MessageContext)

Posted by Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>.
David;

If you need *some* properties(that you send at the request flow) to be
enabled at the response flow set them to the OperationContext (e.g.
msgctx.getOperationContext()).

Alternatively you can access the request message context via the
OperationContext as well.

The idea behind this approach is to have a hierarchy of contexts.
e.g. MessageContext - info about this message context 
      OperationContext - info about set of related messages for this
invocation. for an instance two messages in a request-response
invocation would be kept in a one OperationContext.

You will notice that the properties of the request MC is not necessary
belongs in the response MC.

read Information model part in the archi guide
(http://ws.apache.org/axis2/Axis2ArchitectureGuide.html) for the big
picture

cheers
Srinath

On 9/8/05, Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> If you can explain a bit more on this problem, hope we can help on
> InOutMessageReceivers.
> 
> David Grigglestone wrote:
> 
> > Glen suggested I try this list to determine why the implementation of
> > the above method creates a new message context rather than send the
> > original back (my issue being that any properties I set on my original
> > message context are not available later in the code path) .. and if a
> > copy is required, why is this not a complete copy (that would include
> > any user properties that have been set)?
> >
> > thanks, David
> >
> >
> 
>