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 Lilantha Darshana <Li...@virtusa.com> on 2003/08/01 14:29:22 UTC
RE: [Axis C++] mod_axis & Interface call backs
>I guess your concern is keeping the request_rec as a global pointer and
when
>multiple requests are being served there is a problem of keeping multiple
>request_rec s. Also when calling send_response_bytes and get_request_bytes
>there is no way to associate it with the relevant request_rec.These
concerns
>are relevant only when multithreading.
>yes,It would be better if we can avoid this global varible.
>We suggest the follwing to solve this issue.
>The signature process_request(soapstream *) is changed to process_request
>(soapstream *, void *) so that the request_rec pointer can be passed to
axis
>so that send_response_bytes and get_request_bytes can be called with that
>pointer. Would that solve the problem for writing a module for IIS? do you
>have an idea on how this would affect other modules?
This would be little ok. But why you want to pass unwanted information
around.
What need to be passed into process_request(...) is only the SOAP
envelop & the set of headers or additionally the actual path of the server.
To pass only the body content & headers. I would prefer of having
I/O streams rather than a server specific structure like request_rec
(even though you refer it using a void*).
RE: [Axis C++] mod_axis & Interface call backs
Posted by sa...@opensource.lk.
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:51:20 +0600, sanjayasing wrote
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:29:22 -0400 , Lilantha Darshana wrote
> > >I guess your concern is keeping the request_rec as a global pointer and
> > when
> > >multiple requests are being served there is a problem of keeping
multiple
> > >request_rec s. Also when calling send_response_bytes and
get_request_bytes
> > >there is no way to associate it with the relevant request_rec.These
> > concerns
> > >are relevant only when multithreading.
> >
> > >yes,It would be better if we can avoid this global varible.
> >
> > >We suggest the follwing to solve this issue.
> > >The signature process_request(soapstream *) is changed to process_request
> > >(soapstream *, void *) so that the request_rec pointer can be passed to
> > axis
> > >so that send_response_bytes and get_request_bytes can be called with
that
> > >pointer. Would that solve the problem for writing a module for IIS? do
you
> > >have an idea on how this would affect other modules?
> >
> > This would be little ok. But why you want to pass unwanted
> > information around. What need to be passed into process_request(...)
> > is only the SOAP envelop & the set of headers or additionally the
> > actual path of the server.
> >
> > To pass only the body content & headers. I would prefer of having
> > I/O streams rather than a server specific structure like request_rec
> > (even though you refer it using a void*).
>
> do you mean stl I/O streams?
I mean.. c++ I/O streams?
>
> --
> Lanka Software Foundation (http://www.opensource.lk)
> Promoting Open-Source Development in Sri Lanka
--
Lanka Software Foundation (http://www.opensource.lk)
Promoting Open-Source Development in Sri Lanka
RE: [Axis C++] mod_axis & Interface call backs
Posted by sa...@opensource.lk.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:29:22 -0400 , Lilantha Darshana wrote
> >I guess your concern is keeping the request_rec as a global pointer and
> when
> >multiple requests are being served there is a problem of keeping multiple
> >request_rec s. Also when calling send_response_bytes and get_request_bytes
> >there is no way to associate it with the relevant request_rec.These
> concerns
> >are relevant only when multithreading.
>
> >yes,It would be better if we can avoid this global varible.
>
> >We suggest the follwing to solve this issue.
> >The signature process_request(soapstream *) is changed to process_request
> >(soapstream *, void *) so that the request_rec pointer can be passed to
> axis
> >so that send_response_bytes and get_request_bytes can be called with that
> >pointer. Would that solve the problem for writing a module for IIS? do you
> >have an idea on how this would affect other modules?
>
> This would be little ok. But why you want to pass unwanted
> information around. What need to be passed into process_request(...)
> is only the SOAP envelop & the set of headers or additionally the
> actual path of the server.
>
> To pass only the body content & headers. I would prefer of having
> I/O streams rather than a server specific structure like request_rec
> (even though you refer it using a void*).
do you mean stl I/O streams?
--
Lanka Software Foundation (http://www.opensource.lk)
Promoting Open-Source Development in Sri Lanka