[C++] Axis2C ws bindings

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

The current SCA C++ implementation supports webservice binding using Axis
1.x (there are some outstanding problems with this). I would like to move up
to use Axis2C.

One way to do this is to discard the Axis 1.x binding code and replace with
Axis2C. A better way would be to restructure the code to allow bindings to
be more pluggable. As a starting point I think it would be useful, as
discussed on another thread, to have a Wiki page outlining the current code
architecture/structure which would be of use for anyone who would like to
help out.

As part of this it would also be really good to have an SDO C++ integration
with Axis2C.

Pete

Re: [C++] Axis2C ws bindings

[ant elder <an...@gmail.com>]

Right now its done very inefficiently, in effect converting between SDO an
AXIOM means serializing to a byte array. Have a look at the on going thread
"Data flow on a wire", and also
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-118

   ...ant

On 3/22/06, Edward Slattery <ed...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I have done some preliminary work on SDO integration with axis2C, and have
> talked to some of the axis2c people about the work. There are two areas I
> see that we could be worked on.
>
> The first is a conversion from an SDO data graph to a tree of AXIOM
> objects.
> This could be done by taking SDOXMLWriter for inspiration, and replacing
> the
> actual writing to XML part with a creation of an AXIOM element or
> attribute.  We could then flow SDOs over axis2c, and provided we had the
> same data factory at the other end, could re-build them with an
> SDOAxiomReader utility.
> I also assume (maybe wrongly) that there is nothing preventing me using
> the
> SDOAxiomWriter to write XSD information, so we could flow both the data
> and
> the metadata if required.
>
> The second area of interest is the guththila parser. I have tested that it
> can replace our libxml2 parser, and it seems to be capable of doing that.
> We
> could investigate having a kind of pluggable parser layer, and switch
> parsers between libxml2 and guththila. We would have to work out the best
> way of integrating - I.E take a copy of guththila and build with it, or
> have
> axis2c as a dependency of SDO for C++?  The second is cleaner, but I
> imagine
> the PHP group might want the option of building SDO with only libxml2 for
> now.
>
> I would be interested to know how the integration of the java SDO is being
> handled. Anyone aware?
>
>
> On 21/03/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The current SCA C++ implementation supports webservice binding using
> Axis
> > 1.x (there are some outstanding problems with this). I would like to
> move
> > up
> > to use Axis2C.
> >
> > One way to do this is to discard the Axis 1.x binding code and replace
> > with
> > Axis2C. A better way would be to restructure the code to allow bindings
> to
> > be more pluggable. As a starting point I think it would be useful, as
> > discussed on another thread, to have a Wiki page outlining the current
> > code
> > architecture/structure which would be of use for anyone who would like
> to
> > help out.
> >
> > As part of this it would also be really good to have an SDO C++
> > integration
> > with Axis2C.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [C++] Axis2C ws bindings

[Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>]

On 22/03/06, Edward Slattery <ed...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I have done some preliminary work on SDO integration with axis2C, and have
> talked to some of the axis2c people about the work. There are two areas I
> see that we could be worked on.
>
> The first is a conversion from an SDO data graph to a tree of AXIOM
> objects.
> This could be done by taking SDOXMLWriter for inspiration, and replacing
> the
> actual writing to XML part with a creation of an AXIOM element or
> attribute.  We could then flow SDOs over axis2c, and provided we had the
> same data factory at the other end, could re-build them with an
> SDOAxiomReader utility.
> I also assume (maybe wrongly) that there is nothing preventing me using
> the
> SDOAxiomWriter to write XSD information, so we could flow both the data
> and
> the metadata if required.
>
> The second area of interest is the guththila parser. I have tested that it
> can replace our libxml2 parser, and it seems to be capable of doing that.
> We
> could investigate having a kind of pluggable parser layer, and switch
> parsers between libxml2 and guththila. We would have to work out the best
> way of integrating - I.E take a copy of guththila and build with it, or
> have
> axis2c as a dependency of SDO for C++?  The second is cleaner, but I
> imagine
> the PHP group might want the option of building SDO with only libxml2 for
> now.


A dependency on Axis2C for SDO does not seem at all right to me. Ideally it
would be nice for SDO to use whichever parser is available so the PHP folk
could configure to use libxml2, which seems to be a standard for them, and
we could configure to use a StAX parser.

Check out the thread "*[jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-118) Adding
Serializer/Deserializer for DataObject using StAX for better Axis2 AXIOM
integration* " for a discussion on the Java side. The principles hold true
for C++ as well.

--
> Pete

Re: [C++] Axis2C ws bindings

[Edward Slattery <ed...@googlemail.com>]

I have done some preliminary work on SDO integration with axis2C, and have
talked to some of the axis2c people about the work. There are two areas I
see that we could be worked on.

The first is a conversion from an SDO data graph to a tree of AXIOM objects.
This could be done by taking SDOXMLWriter for inspiration, and replacing the
actual writing to XML part with a creation of an AXIOM element or
attribute.  We could then flow SDOs over axis2c, and provided we had the
same data factory at the other end, could re-build them with an
SDOAxiomReader utility.
I also assume (maybe wrongly) that there is nothing preventing me using the
SDOAxiomWriter to write XSD information, so we could flow both the data and
the metadata if required.

The second area of interest is the guththila parser. I have tested that it
can replace our libxml2 parser, and it seems to be capable of doing that. We
could investigate having a kind of pluggable parser layer, and switch
parsers between libxml2 and guththila. We would have to work out the best
way of integrating - I.E take a copy of guththila and build with it, or have
axis2c as a dependency of SDO for C++?  The second is cleaner, but I imagine
the PHP group might want the option of building SDO with only libxml2 for
now.

I would be interested to know how the integration of the java SDO is being
handled. Anyone aware?


On 21/03/06, Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> The current SCA C++ implementation supports webservice binding using Axis
> 1.x (there are some outstanding problems with this). I would like to move
> up
> to use Axis2C.
>
> One way to do this is to discard the Axis 1.x binding code and replace
> with
> Axis2C. A better way would be to restructure the code to allow bindings to
> be more pluggable. As a starting point I think it would be useful, as
> discussed on another thread, to have a Wiki page outlining the current
> code
> architecture/structure which would be of use for anyone who would like to
> help out.
>
> As part of this it would also be really good to have an SDO C++
> integration
> with Axis2C.
>
> Pete
>
>