You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@synapse.apache.org by Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> on 2008/07/17 12:56:11 UTC
Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high
number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes
me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to
force HTTP 1.0?
Thoughts?
Paul
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
Apache Synapse PMC Chair
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
paul@wso2.com
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Posted by Andreas Veithen <an...@skynet.be>.
Paul,
What is actually the level of support for WSDL2.0 binding information
in Axis2 and where can the related code be found?
Andreas
On 18 juil. 08, at 10:26, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I think there are also other aspects of HTTP, for example, that won't
> be covered by the WSDL2.0 binding.
> For example, the use of a proxy, or choice of chunked encoding, etc.
>
> I like the idea of using WSDL2.0 binding information, but I also like
> the idea of a simple element defined by us capturing everything fairly
> concisely! Maybe there is a balance?
> One thing we could do is look at the wsdl2.0 http binding and at least
> make sure we support everything there - e.g. Method, headers, etc.
>
> Paul
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Ruwan Linton
> <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This will work only for some of the configurations, but when it
>> comes to
>> things like JMS REPLY_TO this wont help. And hence I believe the
>> above
>> discussed approach still holds. I would like to post the design
>> that I am
>> having in my mind;
>>
>> Basically we can have a new TransportConfigurationBuilder and
>> Serializer
>> interface from which all the transport specific configurations are
>> build and
>> serialized, and there should be two factories to get the proper trp
>> config
>> builder/serializer. Then when it comes to execution again there
>> should be a
>> TransportConfiguration interface (or may be an abstract class)
>> which will
>> set the required properties to the message context, and the
>> particular trp
>> config instance that has been built from one of the trp config
>> factories
>> will contain in the Endpoint declaration (for example
>> AddressEndpoint) and
>> it can be used to do the transport configurations over the message.
>> (Basically composition)
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ruwan
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Andreas Veithen <andreas.veithen@skynet.be
>> >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually most of the transport settings that can currently be
>>> configured
>>> on endpoints or that we want to be configurable in the future
>>> would be
>>> configured in a WSDL using either policies or attributes on the
>>> binding. For
>>> example:
>>>
>>> * MTOM can be configured using the
>>> {http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap12-mtom-policy}MTOM policy.
>>> * The HTTP version can be set using the
>>> {http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http}version attribute on the
>>> <binding>
>>> element (at least in WSDL 2.0).
>>>
>>> Assuming that Axis2 has complete support for this, there should
>>> already be
>>> an extension mechanism that allows to configure transport specific
>>> settings.
>>> I think it would be a good idea to try reusing this mechanism for
>>> Synapse
>>> endpoints. If we do this we could have configurations as the
>>> following one
>>> without having to code our own transport specific extensions:
>>>
>>> <endpoint>
>>> <address uri="..." whttp:version="1.0"
>>> xmlns:whttp="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http"/>
>>> </endpoint>
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> Quoting Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Sorry for being late in getting in to this. Am having some
>>>> connectivity problem and hence I am over my phone.
>>>>
>>>> +1 for paul's idea on transport specific configuration rather than
>>>> keeping these to generic properties. We need an extension to
>>>> enpoind,
>>>> ep builders and serializers. Basically through a set of interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> I do have a complete design in my mind and will post it once i
>>>> get the
>>>> connectivity through my machine :-)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ruwan
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/08, Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent point about load-balanced/failover endpoints. +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would be very good to be able to set transport
>>>>> properties
>>>>> on an endpoint level. How about having some specific transport
>>>>> specific configuration elements:
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http version="1.0|1.1" chunked="true|false">
>>>>> <proxy....>
>>>>> <accept....>
>>>>> </http>
>>>>>
>>>>> <jms....>
>>>>>
>>>>> We could build some extension model which allows settings for
>>>>> arbitrary transports to be added in a way that is natural for that
>>>>> transport, so we could later add <smtp> or <fix>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Hubert, Eric <eric.hubert@jamba.net
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sounds like an interersting idea. We actually define it in
>>>>>> exactly that
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> on an endpoint level in our custom "repository" and generate a
>>>>>> synapse.xml
>>>>>> containing the property mediator to set this property. It would
>>>>>> be more
>>>>>> straightforward to be able to set this at the endpoint level.
>>>>>> There one
>>>>>> should consider LoadbalanceEndpoints as a kind of container
>>>>>> from which
>>>>>> "child endpoints" should inherit the defaults. Right now some
>>>>>> properties
>>>>>> need to be specified at the individual endpoint level like
>>>>>> suspend
>>>>>> duration
>>>>>> and timeout. Most of the time all endpoints of a loadbalancing
>>>>>> group
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be handled in the same way (either all http 1.0 or all http 1.1
>>>>>> etc.)
>>>>>> Just
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> thought…
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Asankha C. Perera [mailto:asankha@wso2.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
>>>>>> To: dev@synapse.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint
>>>>>> definition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to
>>>>>> Ruwan
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most
>>>>>> useful
>>>>>> properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead
>>>>>> of full
>>>>>> URL,
>>>>>> setting JMS reply destinations etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> asankha
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the
>>>>>> high
>>>>>>
>>>>>> number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers
>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint
>>>>>> definition to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> force HTTP 1.0?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Asankha C. Perera
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WSO2 - http://wso2.org
>>>>>> http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Paul Fremantle
>>>>> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
>>>>> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
>>>>> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>>>>
>>>>> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
>>>>> paul@wso2.com
>>>>>
>>>>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>>>>
>>>> Ruwan Linton
>>>> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
>>>> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ruwan Linton
>> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
>> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
> paul@wso2.com
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Posted by Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com>.
I think there are also other aspects of HTTP, for example, that won't
be covered by the WSDL2.0 binding.
For example, the use of a proxy, or choice of chunked encoding, etc.
I like the idea of using WSDL2.0 binding information, but I also like
the idea of a simple element defined by us capturing everything fairly
concisely! Maybe there is a balance?
One thing we could do is look at the wsdl2.0 http binding and at least
make sure we support everything there - e.g. Method, headers, etc.
Paul
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This will work only for some of the configurations, but when it comes to
> things like JMS REPLY_TO this wont help. And hence I believe the above
> discussed approach still holds. I would like to post the design that I am
> having in my mind;
>
> Basically we can have a new TransportConfigurationBuilder and Serializer
> interface from which all the transport specific configurations are build and
> serialized, and there should be two factories to get the proper trp config
> builder/serializer. Then when it comes to execution again there should be a
> TransportConfiguration interface (or may be an abstract class) which will
> set the required properties to the message context, and the particular trp
> config instance that has been built from one of the trp config factories
> will contain in the Endpoint declaration (for example AddressEndpoint) and
> it can be used to do the transport configurations over the message.
> (Basically composition)
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Ruwan
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Andreas Veithen <an...@skynet.be>
> wrote:
>>
>> Actually most of the transport settings that can currently be configured
>> on endpoints or that we want to be configurable in the future would be
>> configured in a WSDL using either policies or attributes on the binding. For
>> example:
>>
>> * MTOM can be configured using the
>> {http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap12-mtom-policy}MTOM policy.
>> * The HTTP version can be set using the
>> {http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http}version attribute on the <binding>
>> element (at least in WSDL 2.0).
>>
>> Assuming that Axis2 has complete support for this, there should already be
>> an extension mechanism that allows to configure transport specific settings.
>> I think it would be a good idea to try reusing this mechanism for Synapse
>> endpoints. If we do this we could have configurations as the following one
>> without having to code our own transport specific extensions:
>>
>> <endpoint>
>> <address uri="..." whttp:version="1.0"
>> xmlns:whttp="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http"/>
>> </endpoint>
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> Quoting Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Sorry for being late in getting in to this. Am having some
>>> connectivity problem and hence I am over my phone.
>>>
>>> +1 for paul's idea on transport specific configuration rather than
>>> keeping these to generic properties. We need an extension to enpoind,
>>> ep builders and serializers. Basically through a set of interfaces.
>>>
>>> I do have a complete design in my mind and will post it once i get the
>>> connectivity through my machine :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ruwan
>>>
>>> On 7/17/08, Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>> Excellent point about load-balanced/failover endpoints. +1.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be very good to be able to set transport properties
>>>> on an endpoint level. How about having some specific transport
>>>> specific configuration elements:
>>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http version="1.0|1.1" chunked="true|false">
>>>> <proxy....>
>>>> <accept....>
>>>> </http>
>>>>
>>>> <jms....>
>>>>
>>>> We could build some extension model which allows settings for
>>>> arbitrary transports to be added in a way that is natural for that
>>>> transport, so we could later add <smtp> or <fix>.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Hubert, Eric <er...@jamba.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sounds like an interersting idea. We actually define it in exactly that
>>>>> way
>>>>> on an endpoint level in our custom "repository" and generate a
>>>>> synapse.xml
>>>>> containing the property mediator to set this property. It would be more
>>>>> straightforward to be able to set this at the endpoint level. There one
>>>>> should consider LoadbalanceEndpoints as a kind of container from which
>>>>> "child endpoints" should inherit the defaults. Right now some
>>>>> properties
>>>>> need to be specified at the individual endpoint level like suspend
>>>>> duration
>>>>> and timeout. Most of the time all endpoints of a loadbalancing group
>>>>> should
>>>>> be handled in the same way (either all http 1.0 or all http 1.1 etc.)
>>>>> Just
>>>>> a
>>>>> thought…
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Asankha C. Perera [mailto:asankha@wso2.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
>>>>> To: dev@synapse.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to Ruwan
>>>>> about
>>>>> allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most
>>>>> useful
>>>>> properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead of full
>>>>> URL,
>>>>> setting JMS reply destinations etc..
>>>>>
>>>>> asankha
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high
>>>>>
>>>>> number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes
>>>>>
>>>>> me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to
>>>>>
>>>>> force HTTP 1.0?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Asankha C. Perera
>>>>>
>>>>> WSO2 - http://wso2.org
>>>>> http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul Fremantle
>>>> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
>>>> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
>>>> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>>>
>>>> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
>>>> paul@wso2.com
>>>>
>>>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>>>
>>> Ruwan Linton
>>> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
>>> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ruwan Linton
> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
Apache Synapse PMC Chair
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
paul@wso2.com
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Posted by Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>.
This will work only for some of the configurations, but when it comes to
things like JMS REPLY_TO this wont help. And hence I believe the above
discussed approach still holds. I would like to post the design that I am
having in my mind;
Basically we can have a new TransportConfigurationBuilder and Serializer
interface from which all the transport specific configurations are build and
serialized, and there should be two factories to get the proper trp config
builder/serializer. Then when it comes to execution again there should be a
TransportConfiguration interface (or may be an abstract class) which will
set the required properties to the message context, and the particular trp
config instance that has been built from one of the trp config factories
will contain in the Endpoint declaration (for example AddressEndpoint) and
it can be used to do the transport configurations over the message.
(Basically composition)
WDYT?
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Andreas Veithen <an...@skynet.be>
wrote:
> Actually most of the transport settings that can currently be configured on
> endpoints or that we want to be configurable in the future would be
> configured in a WSDL using either policies or attributes on the binding. For
> example:
>
> * MTOM can be configured using the {
> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap12-mtom-policy}MTOM<http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap12-mtom-policy%7DMTOM>policy.
> * The HTTP version can be set using the {
> http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http}version<http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http%7Dversion>attribute on the <binding> element (at least in WSDL 2.0).
>
> Assuming that Axis2 has complete support for this, there should already be
> an extension mechanism that allows to configure transport specific settings.
> I think it would be a good idea to try reusing this mechanism for Synapse
> endpoints. If we do this we could have configurations as the following one
> without having to code our own transport specific extensions:
>
> <endpoint>
> <address uri="..." whttp:version="1.0" xmlns:whttp="
> http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http"/>
> </endpoint>
>
> WDYT?
>
> Andreas
>
>
> Quoting Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>:
>
> Sorry for being late in getting in to this. Am having some
>> connectivity problem and hence I am over my phone.
>>
>> +1 for paul's idea on transport specific configuration rather than
>> keeping these to generic properties. We need an extension to enpoind,
>> ep builders and serializers. Basically through a set of interfaces.
>>
>> I do have a complete design in my mind and will post it once i get the
>> connectivity through my machine :-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ruwan
>>
>> On 7/17/08, Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> Excellent point about load-balanced/failover endpoints. +1.
>>>
>>> I think it would be very good to be able to set transport properties
>>> on an endpoint level. How about having some specific transport
>>> specific configuration elements:
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>>
>>> <http version="1.0|1.1" chunked="true|false">
>>> <proxy....>
>>> <accept....>
>>> </http>
>>>
>>> <jms....>
>>>
>>> We could build some extension model which allows settings for
>>> arbitrary transports to be added in a way that is natural for that
>>> transport, so we could later add <smtp> or <fix>.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Hubert, Eric <er...@jamba.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sounds like an interersting idea. We actually define it in exactly that
>>>> way
>>>> on an endpoint level in our custom "repository" and generate a
>>>> synapse.xml
>>>> containing the property mediator to set this property. It would be more
>>>> straightforward to be able to set this at the endpoint level. There one
>>>> should consider LoadbalanceEndpoints as a kind of container from which
>>>> "child endpoints" should inherit the defaults. Right now some properties
>>>> need to be specified at the individual endpoint level like suspend
>>>> duration
>>>> and timeout. Most of the time all endpoints of a loadbalancing group
>>>> should
>>>> be handled in the same way (either all http 1.0 or all http 1.1 etc.)
>>>> Just
>>>> a
>>>> thought…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Asankha C. Perera [mailto:asankha@wso2.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
>>>> To: dev@synapse.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to Ruwan
>>>> about
>>>> allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most useful
>>>> properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead of full
>>>> URL,
>>>> setting JMS reply destinations etc..
>>>>
>>>> asankha
>>>>
>>>> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high
>>>>
>>>> number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes
>>>>
>>>> me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to
>>>>
>>>> force HTTP 1.0?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Asankha C. Perera
>>>>
>>>> WSO2 - http://wso2.org
>>>> http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Fremantle
>>> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
>>> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
>>> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>>
>>> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
>>> paul@wso2.com
>>>
>>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>>
>> Ruwan Linton
>> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
>> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>
>
--
Ruwan Linton
http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Posted by Andreas Veithen <an...@skynet.be>.
Actually most of the transport settings that can currently be
configured on endpoints or that we want to be configurable in the
future would be configured in a WSDL using either policies or
attributes on the binding. For example:
* MTOM can be configured using the
{http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap12-mtom-policy}MTOM policy.
* The HTTP version can be set using the
{http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http}version attribute on the
<binding> element (at least in WSDL 2.0).
Assuming that Axis2 has complete support for this, there should
already be an extension mechanism that allows to configure transport
specific settings. I think it would be a good idea to try reusing this
mechanism for Synapse endpoints. If we do this we could have
configurations as the following one without having to code our own
transport specific extensions:
<endpoint>
<address uri="..." whttp:version="1.0"
xmlns:whttp="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/http"/>
</endpoint>
WDYT?
Andreas
Quoting Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>:
> Sorry for being late in getting in to this. Am having some
> connectivity problem and hence I am over my phone.
>
> +1 for paul's idea on transport specific configuration rather than
> keeping these to generic properties. We need an extension to enpoind,
> ep builders and serializers. Basically through a set of interfaces.
>
> I do have a complete design in my mind and will post it once i get the
> connectivity through my machine :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Ruwan
>
> On 7/17/08, Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Eric
>>
>> Excellent point about load-balanced/failover endpoints. +1.
>>
>> I think it would be very good to be able to set transport properties
>> on an endpoint level. How about having some specific transport
>> specific configuration elements:
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>>
>> <http version="1.0|1.1" chunked="true|false">
>> <proxy....>
>> <accept....>
>> </http>
>>
>> <jms....>
>>
>> We could build some extension model which allows settings for
>> arbitrary transports to be added in a way that is natural for that
>> transport, so we could later add <smtp> or <fix>.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Hubert, Eric <er...@jamba.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> sounds like an interersting idea. We actually define it in exactly that
>>> way
>>> on an endpoint level in our custom "repository" and generate a synapse.xml
>>> containing the property mediator to set this property. It would be more
>>> straightforward to be able to set this at the endpoint level. There one
>>> should consider LoadbalanceEndpoints as a kind of container from which
>>> "child endpoints" should inherit the defaults. Right now some properties
>>> need to be specified at the individual endpoint level like suspend
>>> duration
>>> and timeout. Most of the time all endpoints of a loadbalancing group
>>> should
>>> be handled in the same way (either all http 1.0 or all http 1.1 etc.) Just
>>> a
>>> thought…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Asankha C. Perera [mailto:asankha@wso2.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
>>> To: dev@synapse.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to Ruwan
>>> about
>>> allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most useful
>>> properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead of full
>>> URL,
>>> setting JMS reply destinations etc..
>>>
>>> asankha
>>>
>>> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high
>>>
>>> number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes
>>>
>>> me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to
>>>
>>> force HTTP 1.0?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Asankha C. Perera
>>>
>>> WSO2 - http://wso2.org
>>> http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul Fremantle
>> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
>> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
>> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>
>> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
>> paul@wso2.com
>>
>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
> Ruwan Linton
> http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
> http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Posted by Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for being late in getting in to this. Am having some
connectivity problem and hence I am over my phone.
+1 for paul's idea on transport specific configuration rather than
keeping these to generic properties. We need an extension to enpoind,
ep builders and serializers. Basically through a set of interfaces.
I do have a complete design in my mind and will post it once i get the
connectivity through my machine :-)
Thanks,
Ruwan
On 7/17/08, Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric
>
> Excellent point about load-balanced/failover endpoints. +1.
>
> I think it would be very good to be able to set transport properties
> on an endpoint level. How about having some specific transport
> specific configuration elements:
>
> e.g.
>
>
> <http version="1.0|1.1" chunked="true|false">
> <proxy....>
> <accept....>
> </http>
>
> <jms....>
>
> We could build some extension model which allows settings for
> arbitrary transports to be added in a way that is natural for that
> transport, so we could later add <smtp> or <fix>.
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Hubert, Eric <er...@jamba.net>
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> sounds like an interersting idea. We actually define it in exactly that
>> way
>> on an endpoint level in our custom "repository" and generate a synapse.xml
>> containing the property mediator to set this property. It would be more
>> straightforward to be able to set this at the endpoint level. There one
>> should consider LoadbalanceEndpoints as a kind of container from which
>> "child endpoints" should inherit the defaults. Right now some properties
>> need to be specified at the individual endpoint level like suspend
>> duration
>> and timeout. Most of the time all endpoints of a loadbalancing group
>> should
>> be handled in the same way (either all http 1.0 or all http 1.1 etc.) Just
>> a
>> thought…
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Asankha C. Perera [mailto:asankha@wso2.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
>> To: dev@synapse.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to Ruwan
>> about
>> allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most useful
>> properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead of full
>> URL,
>> setting JMS reply destinations etc..
>>
>> asankha
>>
>> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>
>> I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high
>>
>> number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes
>>
>> me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to
>>
>> force HTTP 1.0?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Asankha C. Perera
>>
>> WSO2 - http://wso2.org
>> http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
> paul@wso2.com
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
>
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Ruwan Linton
http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Posted by Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com>.
Eric
Excellent point about load-balanced/failover endpoints. +1.
I think it would be very good to be able to set transport properties
on an endpoint level. How about having some specific transport
specific configuration elements:
e.g.
<http version="1.0|1.1" chunked="true|false">
<proxy....>
<accept....>
</http>
<jms....>
We could build some extension model which allows settings for
arbitrary transports to be added in a way that is natural for that
transport, so we could later add <smtp> or <fix>.
Paul
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Hubert, Eric <er...@jamba.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> sounds like an interersting idea. We actually define it in exactly that way
> on an endpoint level in our custom "repository" and generate a synapse.xml
> containing the property mediator to set this property. It would be more
> straightforward to be able to set this at the endpoint level. There one
> should consider LoadbalanceEndpoints as a kind of container from which
> "child endpoints" should inherit the defaults. Right now some properties
> need to be specified at the individual endpoint level like suspend duration
> and timeout. Most of the time all endpoints of a loadbalancing group should
> be handled in the same way (either all http 1.0 or all http 1.1 etc.) Just a
> thought…
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Asankha C. Perera [mailto:asankha@wso2.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
> To: dev@synapse.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to Ruwan about
> allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most useful
> properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead of full URL,
> setting JMS reply destinations etc..
>
> asankha
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high
>
> number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes
>
> me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to
>
> force HTTP 1.0?
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Asankha C. Perera
>
> WSO2 - http://wso2.org
> http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
Apache Synapse PMC Chair
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
paul@wso2.com
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@synapse.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@synapse.apache.org
RE: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Posted by "Hubert, Eric" <er...@jamba.net>.
Hi all,
sounds like an interersting idea. We actually define it in exactly that
way on an endpoint level in our custom "repository" and generate a
synapse.xml containing the property mediator to set this property. It
would be more straightforward to be able to set this at the endpoint
level. There one should consider LoadbalanceEndpoints as a kind of
container from which "child endpoints" should inherit the defaults.
Right now some properties need to be specified at the individual
endpoint level like suspend duration and timeout. Most of the time all
endpoints of a loadbalancing group should be handled in the same way
(either all http 1.0 or all http 1.1 etc.) Just a thought...
Regards,
Eric
________________________________
From: Asankha C. Perera [mailto:asankha@wso2.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
To: dev@synapse.apache.org
Subject: Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Paul
Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to Ruwan
about allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most
useful properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead of
full URL, setting JMS reply destinations etc..
asankha
Paul Fremantle wrote:
I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high
number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes
me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to
force HTTP 1.0?
Thoughts?
Paul
--
Asankha C. Perera
WSO2 - http://wso2.org
http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition?
Posted by "Asankha C. Perera" <as...@wso2.com>.
Paul
Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to Ruwan
about allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most
useful properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead of
full URL, setting JMS reply destinations etc..
asankha
Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high
> number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes
> me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to
> force HTTP 1.0?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Paul
>
>
--
Asankha C. Perera
WSO2 - http://wso2.org
http://esbmagic.blogspot.com