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 Fred Preston <PR...@uk.ibm.com> on 2004/08/12 16:31:27 UTC
HeaderBlock prefixes
Hi All,
Has the code the allows the HeaderBlock to add prefixes to the
localName been put back into the code base? i.e can't create
<prefix:localName>, <wsse:Security>, <rrbus:context>, etc...
Regards,
Fred Preston.
RE: HeaderBlock prefixes
Posted by Susantha Kumara <su...@opensource.lk>.
+1 for registering the namespace/prefix pairs either by the Axis library
initializing routines or by the application (through an interface
function that will be provided).
The spp too will have a mechanism to register the namespace/prefix pairs
for efficiency reasons :) .
Susantha.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hawkins [mailto:HAWKINSJ@uk.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 3:14 PM
> To: Apache AXIS C Developers List
> Subject: Re: HeaderBlock prefixes
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Roshan,
>
> It appears that making an application "namespace aware" is highly
> performance intensive therefore we are aware of applications that do
not
> bother and rely on the prefix to understand where they are. Yes, we
> understand that it's wrong but we should accomodate them - at least in
the
> short term (next few releases?)
>
> I like the second idea of registering the namespace/prefix - that's a
much
> neater interface !
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Hawkins
>
>
>
>
>
> Roshan
> Weerasuriya
> <roshan@opensourc
To
> e.lk> Apache AXIS C Developers List
> <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> 13/08/2004 06:50
cc
>
>
Subject
> Please respond to Re: HeaderBlock prefixes
> "Apache AXIS C
> Developers List"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hi all,
>
> The earlier code base supported this "setPrefix(..)" method to be used
> by the users. But then later it was removed (commented) thinking that
> the prefix will be decided by the engine (the Serializer) and be added
> at the time of Serializing.
>
> But if a user really need to have his prefix (but the important one is
> the 'exact namespace URI', but not the prefix), then this method could
> be open for users again. What do others think?
>
> Another approach is not to open up the setPrefix(..) method, but let
the
> user register the namespaceURI,prefix pair with the serializer to be
> used and then the serizlier will used the registered prefix at the
> appropriate places.
>
> What are the thoughts?
>
> Roshan
>
> On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 20:31, Fred Preston wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> > Has the code the allows the HeaderBlock to add prefixes to the
> > localName been put back into the code base? i.e can't create
> > <prefix:localName>, <wsse:Security>, <rrbus:context>, etc...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Fred Preston.
> >
> >
>
>
Re: HeaderBlock prefixes
Posted by John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com>.
Hi Roshan,
It appears that making an application "namespace aware" is highly
performance intensive therefore we are aware of applications that do not
bother and rely on the prefix to understand where they are. Yes, we
understand that it's wrong but we should accomodate them - at least in the
short term (next few releases?)
I like the second idea of registering the namespace/prefix - that's a much
neater interface !
John Hawkins
Roshan
Weerasuriya
<roshan@opensourc To
e.lk> Apache AXIS C Developers List
<ax...@ws.apache.org>
13/08/2004 06:50 cc
Subject
Please respond to Re: HeaderBlock prefixes
"Apache AXIS C
Developers List"
hi all,
The earlier code base supported this "setPrefix(..)" method to be used
by the users. But then later it was removed (commented) thinking that
the prefix will be decided by the engine (the Serializer) and be added
at the time of Serializing.
But if a user really need to have his prefix (but the important one is
the 'exact namespace URI', but not the prefix), then this method could
be open for users again. What do others think?
Another approach is not to open up the setPrefix(..) method, but let the
user register the namespaceURI,prefix pair with the serializer to be
used and then the serizlier will used the registered prefix at the
appropriate places.
What are the thoughts?
Roshan
On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 20:31, Fred Preston wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
> Has the code the allows the HeaderBlock to add prefixes to the
> localName been put back into the code base? i.e can't create
> <prefix:localName>, <wsse:Security>, <rrbus:context>, etc...
>
> Regards,
>
> Fred Preston.
>
>
Re: HeaderBlock prefixes
Posted by Roshan Weerasuriya <ro...@opensource.lk>.
hi all,
The earlier code base supported this "setPrefix(..)" method to be used
by the users. But then later it was removed (commented) thinking that
the prefix will be decided by the engine (the Serializer) and be added
at the time of Serializing.
But if a user really need to have his prefix (but the important one is
the 'exact namespace URI', but not the prefix), then this method could
be open for users again. What do others think?
Another approach is not to open up the setPrefix(..) method, but let the
user register the namespaceURI,prefix pair with the serializer to be
used and then the serizlier will used the registered prefix at the
appropriate places.
What are the thoughts?
Roshan
On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 20:31, Fred Preston wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
> Has the code the allows the HeaderBlock to add prefixes to the
> localName been put back into the code base? i.e can't create
> <prefix:localName>, <wsse:Security>, <rrbus:context>, etc...
>
> Regards,
>
> Fred Preston.
>
>