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 Doug Davis <du...@us.ibm.com> on 2001/02/01 15:37:55 UTC
[Vote] 1 Msg or 2
To help move things along, I'd like to propose that
we VOTE on one of the smaller open issues - one message
or two in the MessageContext.
I propose that we have two messages, an incoming and
an outgoing (or an request and a response - we can
work on the words after the vote). From the e-mails
I think that's where most (not all) people are but
I'd like to have a formal vote to try to bring this to
a close. Committers, if you vote -1 please give a
details list of reasons why one message would be better
in an effort to sway us to your side. Likewise, if you
vote +1 and can think of reasons why one message just
won't cut it please let us know of those too.
-Dug
Re: [Vote] 1 Msg or 2
Posted by Jacek Kopecky <ja...@idoox.com>.
As indicated in my pictures, the intermediaries are like targetted
services, wrapping the next SOAP application, so there's no need for
this copying request to response here.
Can you come up with some other use case for being able to do this
copying?
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Kevin Mitchell wrote:
> +1 for two messages presented thru the MessageContext. One message will
> likely lead to undo complication in the public API to manage the original
> state vs the current state.
>
> However, I think it should be possible to modify the original message and
> send it as the response, without instantiating two distinct message
> objects. I imagine this will be especially efficient for intermediaries
> that peform specific processing as directed by header entries, remove
> those header entries, and pass the message on or fault. In this case a
> good portion of the original message may be retained verbatim. Examples
> are authentication or routing intermediaries.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 2/1/01, 9:37:55 AM, Doug Davis <du...@us.ibm.com> wrote regarding [Vote] 1
> Msg or 2:
>
>
> > To help move things along, I'd like to propose that
> > we VOTE on one of the smaller open issues - one message
> > or two in the MessageContext.
> > I propose that we have two messages, an incoming and
> > an outgoing (or an request and a response - we can
> > work on the words after the vote). From the e-mails
> > I think that's where most (not all) people are but
> > I'd like to have a formal vote to try to bring this to
> > a close. Committers, if you vote -1 please give a
> > details list of reasons why one message would be better
> > in an effort to sway us to your side. Likewise, if you
> > vote +1 and can think of reasons why one message just
> > won't cut it please let us know of those too.
> > -Dug
>
Re: [Vote] 1 Msg or 2
Posted by Kevin Mitchell <ke...@xmls.com>.
+1 for two messages presented thru the MessageContext. One message will
likely lead to undo complication in the public API to manage the original
state vs the current state.
However, I think it should be possible to modify the original message and
send it as the response, without instantiating two distinct message
objects. I imagine this will be especially efficient for intermediaries
that peform specific processing as directed by header entries, remove
those header entries, and pass the message on or fault. In this case a
good portion of the original message may be retained verbatim. Examples
are authentication or routing intermediaries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2/1/01, 9:37:55 AM, Doug Davis <du...@us.ibm.com> wrote regarding [Vote] 1
Msg or 2:
> To help move things along, I'd like to propose that
> we VOTE on one of the smaller open issues - one message
> or two in the MessageContext.
> I propose that we have two messages, an incoming and
> an outgoing (or an request and a response - we can
> work on the words after the vote). From the e-mails
> I think that's where most (not all) people are but
> I'd like to have a formal vote to try to bring this to
> a close. Committers, if you vote -1 please give a
> details list of reasons why one message would be better
> in an effort to sway us to your side. Likewise, if you
> vote +1 and can think of reasons why one message just
> won't cut it please let us know of those too.
> -Dug
Re: [Vote] 1 Msg or 2
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>.
+1 for 2 messages. Life is a mess with 1 message and it
assumes that follow-on handlers won't want to know what
the *original* message was. I like having the original
message and the "current candidate response" around.
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Davis" <du...@us.ibm.com>
To: <ax...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:37 AM
Subject: [Vote] 1 Msg or 2
> To help move things along, I'd like to propose that
> we VOTE on one of the smaller open issues - one message
> or two in the MessageContext.
> I propose that we have two messages, an incoming and
> an outgoing (or an request and a response - we can
> work on the words after the vote). From the e-mails
> I think that's where most (not all) people are but
> I'd like to have a formal vote to try to bring this to
> a close. Committers, if you vote -1 please give a
> details list of reasons why one message would be better
> in an effort to sway us to your side. Likewise, if you
> vote +1 and can think of reasons why one message just
> won't cut it please let us know of those too.
> -Dug
>