[axis2]Should we create a Transport module?

[Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>]

Hi All;
Shall we create a module for the transports? What I propose to keep
the interfaces in the core but put the things like AxisServlet ect in
the module.

When the SMTP ect is added there will be long set of dependencies for
the transports. So separating will make the things clear! thoughts?
Thanks
Srinath

Re: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?

[Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ciaran;

> Im a long time lurker(and long time user of AXIS) and have been
> meaning to contribute for sometime. This particular subject is of
> particular interest to me and Id like to kinda put in my 2 cents
> worth. Im probably not going to be an immediate contributer to the
> code(would like to do a bug hunt first to help out). 
Yap .. hunting the bugs is the most cooleast help at Post-release period :)

> But thinking
> about transport, would it not be wise to define a common interface
> between AXIS and whatever and then fit the transports to that ? The
> first pass at an attempt would probably cover 90% of transports and
> then the exceptions could be gradually integrated.
Yap .. actually we are trying our best to define a common interface! I
love to go in to the length of building the transport after the core
so the transport are pick in later!

yet  we got problems e.g. in the case of the Servlt .. servlet starts
the message processing and servlet call Axis. So what ever we do
Servlet go to start the thingy  :)  we try best to generalize the
transport based on the Writers and readers and seems that is best we
can do

But sure enough a fresh look would yeild better solutions! please let
us know if you found any!
cheers
Srinath

Re: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?

[ciaran dunn <ci...@gmail.com>]

Hello,

Im a long time lurker(and long time user of AXIS) and have been
meaning to contribute for sometime. This particular subject is of
particular interest to me and Id like to kinda put in my 2 cents
worth. Im probably not going to be an immediate contributer to the
code(would like to do a bug hunt first to help out). But thinking
about transport, would it not be wise to define a common interface
between AXIS and whatever and then fit the transports to that ? The
first pass at an attempt would probably cover 90% of transports and
then the exceptions could be gradually integrated.

Oh and to introduce myself... I live in London. Im an Australian from
Canberra... have a degree in electronics engineering and another in
computer science... have been outside of home for about 5 years now.
Have about 12 years development experience in C, C++, java, j2ee etc
etc... I can even code yo up some perl if you pay me enough :) the
usual list of resume nonsense :) Worked in startups, fortune
500s(which Ill never go back to :), banks(which again :) ) and
currently work for an R&D dept for a big french telco.... you can
prolly guess. Objectweb... Jonas... Only Im in London :)

Ive been on this list for so long that when the tsunami hit my first
major thought was "I hope the Sri Laken AXIS guys are OK"

Regards,
Ciaran


On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 07:50:56 +0600, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am bit worried will we have way too many modules at the end .. how
> many transports should we support eventually? HTTP,SMTP, JMS?, TCP
> ...but unless the list is too many let us go for it (it will encourage
> better testing as well!)
> Thanks
> Srinath
> 
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:29:27 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
> <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > +1 but shouldn't each transport proto impl be a separate module?
> > Then if I only want the SMTP transport I can build just that part.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Srinath Perera" <he...@gmail.com>
> > To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:54 PM
> > Subject: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?
> >
> > > Hi All;
> > > Shall we create a module for the transports? What I propose to keep
> > > the interfaces in the core but put the things like AxisServlet ect in
> > > the module.
> > >
> > > When the SMTP ect is added there will be long set of dependencies for
> > > the transports. So separating will make the things clear! thoughts?
> > > Thanks
> > > Srinath
> > >
> >
> 


-- 
"THIS IS NOT HIGHWAY 89" - Rene Magritte

Re: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?

[Ajith Ranabahu <aj...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,
Well I am definitely +1 to move the transports away from the core but
0- on having a seperate module for each and every transport. This is
my suggestion.
1. Keep the base transport interfaces in the core module. Then core
can be built standalone.
2.Keep all the transport implementations in one transport module.
Probably the seperation can be with different packaging.
(org.apache.axis.transport.http,org.apache.axis.transport.http.smtp
etc)
3. To build the transport modules the maven build will include
seperate goals that would build HTTP only, SMTP only and so on.

thoughts?

BTW I am not happy with having sub modules. it seems to complicate
things so our modularization should not go above one level


On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:54:54 +0600, Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I am bit worried will we have way too many modules at the end .. how
> > >many transports should we support eventually? HTTP,SMTP, JMS?, TCP
> > >
> > >
> > you can also have sub-modules ;-)
> oh .. :) it will be hell lot complex
> 
> >
> > >...but unless the list is too many let us go for it (it will encourage
> > >better testing as well!)
> > >
> > >
> > it is good to enforce dependencies between modules - for example if
> > engine core needs only to known about transport interfaces then only
> > classes with compiled transport interfaces should be on javac classpath
> > during engine compilation.
> +1.  I like to build the tranport after the core .. (leave simple Axis
> server in the core for testing). So the transports can be build later
> and put in the classpath. (same works for deployment as well Now)
> Thanks
> Srinarth
> 
> 
> > alek
> >
> > >On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:29:27 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > ><sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>+1 but shouldn't each transport proto impl be a separate module?
> > >>Then if I only want the SMTP transport I can build just that part.
> > >>
> > >>Sanjiva.
> > >>
> > >>----- Original Message -----
> > >>From: "Srinath Perera" <he...@gmail.com>
> > >>To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> > >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:54 PM
> > >>Subject: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Hi All;
> > >>>Shall we create a module for the transports? What I propose to keep
> > >>>the interfaces in the core but put the things like AxisServlet ect in
> > >>>the module.
> > >>>
> > >>>When the SMTP ect is added there will be long set of dependencies for
> > >>>the transports. So separating will make the things clear! thoughts?
> > >>>Thanks
> > >>>Srinath
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> > --
> > The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
> >
> >
> 


-- 
Ajith Ranabahu

Re: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?

[Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>]

> >I am bit worried will we have way too many modules at the end .. how
> >many transports should we support eventually? HTTP,SMTP, JMS?, TCP
> >
> >
> you can also have sub-modules ;-)
oh .. :) it will be hell lot complex 

> 
> >...but unless the list is too many let us go for it (it will encourage
> >better testing as well!)
> >
> >
> it is good to enforce dependencies between modules - for example if
> engine core needs only to known about transport interfaces then only
> classes with compiled transport interfaces should be on javac classpath
> during engine compilation.
+1.  I like to build the tranport after the core .. (leave simple Axis
server in the core for testing). So the transports can be build later
and put in the classpath. (same works for deployment as well Now)
Thanks
Srinarth




> alek
> 
> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:29:27 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
> ><sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>+1 but shouldn't each transport proto impl be a separate module?
> >>Then if I only want the SMTP transport I can build just that part.
> >>
> >>Sanjiva.
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Srinath Perera" <he...@gmail.com>
> >>To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:54 PM
> >>Subject: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi All;
> >>>Shall we create a module for the transports? What I propose to keep
> >>>the interfaces in the core but put the things like AxisServlet ect in
> >>>the module.
> >>>
> >>>When the SMTP ect is added there will be long set of dependencies for
> >>>the transports. So separating will make the things clear! thoughts?
> >>>Thanks
> >>>Srinath
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> --
> The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
> 
>

Re: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?

[Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu>]

Srinath Perera wrote:

>I am bit worried will we have way too many modules at the end .. how
>many transports should we support eventually? HTTP,SMTP, JMS?, TCP
>  
>
you can also have sub-modules ;-)

>...but unless the list is too many let us go for it (it will encourage
>better testing as well!)
>  
>
it is good to enforce dependencies between modules - for example if 
engine core needs only to known about transport interfaces then only 
classes with compiled transport interfaces should be on javac classpath 
during engine compilation.

alek

>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:29:27 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
><sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
>  
>
>>+1 but shouldn't each transport proto impl be a separate module?
>>Then if I only want the SMTP transport I can build just that part.
>>
>>Sanjiva.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Srinath Perera" <he...@gmail.com>
>>To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:54 PM
>>Subject: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi All;
>>>Shall we create a module for the transports? What I propose to keep
>>>the interfaces in the core but put the things like AxisServlet ect in
>>>the module.
>>>
>>>When the SMTP ect is added there will be long set of dependencies for
>>>the transports. So separating will make the things clear! thoughts?
>>>Thanks
>>>Srinath
>>>
>>>      
>>>


-- 
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay

Re: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?

[Srinath Perera <he...@gmail.com>]

I am bit worried will we have way too many modules at the end .. how
many transports should we support eventually? HTTP,SMTP, JMS?, TCP
...but unless the list is too many let us go for it (it will encourage
better testing as well!)
Thanks
Srinath


On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:29:27 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana
<sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> +1 but shouldn't each transport proto impl be a separate module?
> Then if I only want the SMTP transport I can build just that part.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Srinath Perera" <he...@gmail.com>
> To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:54 PM
> Subject: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?
> 
> > Hi All;
> > Shall we create a module for the transports? What I propose to keep
> > the interfaces in the core but put the things like AxisServlet ect in
> > the module.
> >
> > When the SMTP ect is added there will be long set of dependencies for
> > the transports. So separating will make the things clear! thoughts?
> > Thanks
> > Srinath
> >
>

Re: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?

[Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>]

+1 but shouldn't each transport proto impl be a separate module?
Then if I only want the SMTP transport I can build just that part.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Srinath Perera" <he...@gmail.com>
To: <ax...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:54 PM
Subject: [axis2]Should we create a Transport module?


> Hi All;
> Shall we create a module for the transports? What I propose to keep
> the interfaces in the core but put the things like AxisServlet ect in
> the module.
> 
> When the SMTP ect is added there will be long set of dependencies for
> the transports. So separating will make the things clear! thoughts?
> Thanks
> Srinath
>