Axis, WSDL and deployment issues

[James M Snell <ja...@us.ibm.com>]

Hello all....

Ok, a few things:

Over the past few weeks We  (myself and a few others on the Web services 
team inside IBM) have been looking into the use of WSDL as a deployment 
mechanism for services in both Axis and more generally in the JSR109 (the 
JSR for Web services) context.  At first, the idea was that using WSDL 
would add a good deal of natural symmetry on both the server and client 
and allow some good code reuse, but as we started to dig into what it 
would look like to actually use a WSDL as a deployment mechanism, the 
number of complexities started to rise very quickly.  Quite frankly, while 
WSDL can be used as a way to deploy services, we're not sure that there is 
not enough benefit to warrant pursuing it.  So my suggestion is that we 
just go with the approach we've already been taking -- using WSDD to 
deploy services, handlers, chains, etc. 

There is however, one change that I'd like to make that I actually pitched 
a couple of weeks ago and that is the creation of a pluggable resover 
architecture.  See the attached powerpoint for a brief overview but the 
idea is simple:  let's make the deployment of services/handlers/etc 
completely and totally pluggable and make it so that multiple deployment 
mechanisms can be used simultaneously.  The pluggable resolver 
architecture outlined in the powerpoint is actually just an evolution of 
the registry/supplier architecture that we've already got in place making 
it far more flexible. 

I'm about 2/3 of the way through writing the prototype code for the 
resolver architecture and hope to have it ready for review by Wednesday. 
It's extremely slow going due to a few other things I have going at the 
moment (not the least of which is trying to settle into a new house). 

The number one advantage of the pluggable resolver architecture is 
flexibility.  For example, It will make it easier to roll in things like 
JSR109 service deployment support once that specification is complete.  It 
will also make migration from SOAP 2.x easier.  When the prototype is 
done, I'll try to spend some more time expounding on how exactly it makes 
things easier.



- James Snell
     Software Engineer, Internet Emerging Technologies, IBM
     James M Snell/Fresno/IBM - jasnell@us.ibm.com
These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. 
In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the 
world. 
- John 16:33

Re: Axis, WSDL and deployment issues

[Glen Daniels <gd...@macromedia.com>]

Will comment more fully from work in a while, but:

----- Original Message -----
From: "James M Snell" <ja...@us.ibm.com>
To: <ax...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Resolver

> >I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I'm not sure I see the need for all
> >this complexity, and I think I may disagree with (or perhaps just don't
> >understand) some of the core architectural ideas.
> >
>
> I think you're only seeing complexity here because you're thinking the
> resolver stuff is in addition to the deployment and WSDD stuff that is
> already there.  You're thinking "Why do we need this additional
> stuff?".... The resolver stuff is meant to completely replace what is
> there.  And if you really look at it, it really isn't doing much more than
> what we've already got but it is doing it will less code, and greater
> flexibility.

...

> With the introduction of the simplified SD format, WSDD could go away
> completely.  I've never been happy with WSDD's complexity for deploying
> services.  SD pares down that complexity quite a bit.  Additionally, the
> SD code is smaller and removes the dependency on DOM (it's completely
> SAX-based).  It's much more efficient and smaller.  The syntax is easier
> to use.  WSDD can go bye bye.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James M Snell" <ja...@us.ibm.com>
To: <ax...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 5:12 PM
Subject: Axis, WSDL and deployment issues


> not enough benefit to warrant pursuing it.  So my suggestion is that we
> just go with the approach we've already been taking -- using WSDD to
> deploy services, handlers, chains, etc.

Holy mixed messages, Batman! :)

Now I am really worried.  A wholesale replacement for WSDD at this point
frankly terrifies me.  How do you do global config with the sd stuff?
Where's the "name" config which lets you actually specify the service
identifier?  What about type mappings and other config params which are not
Handlers?

Eek, dude.

--Glen