You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fx-dev@ws.apache.org by Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> on 2006/03/08 06:04:54 UTC

Generic phase for module authors

Hi all;

I added generic phases for each flow (as operation predefined phase) ,
so if some module author specially Sandesha , WS-Security and addressing
want to add handlers to operation phase its better if they are going use
those phase . Otherwise if some one want to add new module he has to
edit axis2.xml (if module want to add new phase as I know Sandesha dose
so) , for me its not good for axis2.

I just came up with some phase names , if you guys not happy with pls
help me to improve that.

inflow
OperationInPhase
outflow
OperationOutPhase
inFaultFlow
OperationInFaultPhase
outFaultFlow
OperationOutFaultPhase

N:B – This does not mean that module can not add new phase

-- 
Thanks,
Deepal
................................................................
~Future is Open~ 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: sandesha-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: sandesha-dev-help@ws.apache.org

Re: Generic phase for module authors

Posted by Jaliya Ekanayake <jn...@gmail.com>.
+1 to add QoS phases predefined. E.g. Security, RM, Transaction etc.. The order for most cases is fixed and IMHO no harm to have them.
-Jaliya
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chamikara Jayalath 
  To: Deepal Jayasinghe 
  Cc: sandesha-dev@ws.apache.org ; axis-dev@ws.apache.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:03 AM
  Subject: Re: Generic phase for module authors


  Hi Deepal,

  yes, it is easier when handlers have to be added only to the predefined phases. The users will be able to add the module by a simple drag & drop.

  But since these phases are named in a generic manner (not as RMPhase SecurityPhase etc)  it will be very common for handlers from various modules to end up in the same phase. 
  But there are cases where we want to make sure that handlers are invoked in a specific order. (for e.g. RM + Security).

  This will increase the usage of the phase order feature. But current phase order implementation only offers  simple functionalities (for e.g. we cannot say a RM Inflow Handler have to be after the two addressing handlers, when they are in the same phase).
  Is it possible to make this feature a bit advance. I think it will be quite useful.


  Thanks.
  Chamikara
   


   

  On 3/8/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Hi all;

    I added generic phases for each flow (as operation predefined phase) ,
    so if some module author specially Sandesha , WS-Security and addressing
    want to add handlers to operation phase its better if they are going use 
    those phase . Otherwise if some one want to add new module he has to
    edit axis2.xml (if module want to add new phase as I know Sandesha dose
    so) , for me its not good for axis2.

    I just came up with some phase names , if you guys not happy with pls 
    help me to improve that.

    inflow
    OperationInPhase
    outflow
    OperationOutPhase
    inFaultFlow
    OperationInFaultPhase
    outFaultFlow
    OperationOutFaultPhase

    N:B – This does not mean that module can not add new phase 

    --
    Thanks,
    Deepal
    ................................................................
    ~Future is Open~


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe, e-mail: sandesha-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
    For additional commands, e-mail: sandesha-dev-help@ws.apache.org

Re: Generic phase for module authors

Posted by Jaliya Ekanayake <jn...@gmail.com>.
+1 to add QoS phases predefined. E.g. Security, RM, Transaction etc.. The order for most cases is fixed and IMHO no harm to have them.
-Jaliya
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chamikara Jayalath 
  To: Deepal Jayasinghe 
  Cc: sandesha-dev@ws.apache.org ; axis-dev@ws.apache.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:03 AM
  Subject: Re: Generic phase for module authors


  Hi Deepal,

  yes, it is easier when handlers have to be added only to the predefined phases. The users will be able to add the module by a simple drag & drop.

  But since these phases are named in a generic manner (not as RMPhase SecurityPhase etc)  it will be very common for handlers from various modules to end up in the same phase. 
  But there are cases where we want to make sure that handlers are invoked in a specific order. (for e.g. RM + Security).

  This will increase the usage of the phase order feature. But current phase order implementation only offers  simple functionalities (for e.g. we cannot say a RM Inflow Handler have to be after the two addressing handlers, when they are in the same phase).
  Is it possible to make this feature a bit advance. I think it will be quite useful.


  Thanks.
  Chamikara
   


   

  On 3/8/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Hi all;

    I added generic phases for each flow (as operation predefined phase) ,
    so if some module author specially Sandesha , WS-Security and addressing
    want to add handlers to operation phase its better if they are going use 
    those phase . Otherwise if some one want to add new module he has to
    edit axis2.xml (if module want to add new phase as I know Sandesha dose
    so) , for me its not good for axis2.

    I just came up with some phase names , if you guys not happy with pls 
    help me to improve that.

    inflow
    OperationInPhase
    outflow
    OperationOutPhase
    inFaultFlow
    OperationInFaultPhase
    outFaultFlow
    OperationOutFaultPhase

    N:B – This does not mean that module can not add new phase 

    --
    Thanks,
    Deepal
    ................................................................
    ~Future is Open~


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe, e-mail: sandesha-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
    For additional commands, e-mail: sandesha-dev-help@ws.apache.org

Re: Generic phase for module authors

Posted by Jaliya Ekanayake <jn...@gmail.com>.
+1 to add QoS phases predefined. E.g. Security, RM, Transaction etc.. The order for most cases is fixed and IMHO no harm to have them.
-Jaliya
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chamikara Jayalath 
  To: Deepal Jayasinghe 
  Cc: sandesha-dev@ws.apache.org ; axis-dev@ws.apache.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:03 AM
  Subject: Re: Generic phase for module authors


  Hi Deepal,

  yes, it is easier when handlers have to be added only to the predefined phases. The users will be able to add the module by a simple drag & drop.

  But since these phases are named in a generic manner (not as RMPhase SecurityPhase etc)  it will be very common for handlers from various modules to end up in the same phase. 
  But there are cases where we want to make sure that handlers are invoked in a specific order. (for e.g. RM + Security).

  This will increase the usage of the phase order feature. But current phase order implementation only offers  simple functionalities (for e.g. we cannot say a RM Inflow Handler have to be after the two addressing handlers, when they are in the same phase).
  Is it possible to make this feature a bit advance. I think it will be quite useful.


  Thanks.
  Chamikara
   


   

  On 3/8/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Hi all;

    I added generic phases for each flow (as operation predefined phase) ,
    so if some module author specially Sandesha , WS-Security and addressing
    want to add handlers to operation phase its better if they are going use 
    those phase . Otherwise if some one want to add new module he has to
    edit axis2.xml (if module want to add new phase as I know Sandesha dose
    so) , for me its not good for axis2.

    I just came up with some phase names , if you guys not happy with pls 
    help me to improve that.

    inflow
    OperationInPhase
    outflow
    OperationOutPhase
    inFaultFlow
    OperationInFaultPhase
    outFaultFlow
    OperationOutFaultPhase

    N:B – This does not mean that module can not add new phase 

    --
    Thanks,
    Deepal
    ................................................................
    ~Future is Open~


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe, e-mail: sandesha-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
    For additional commands, e-mail: sandesha-dev-help@ws.apache.org

Re: Generic phase for module authors

Posted by Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@gmail.com>.
Hi Deepal,

yes, it is easier when handlers have to be added only to the predefined
phases. The users will be able to add the module by a simple drag & drop.

But since these phases are named in a generic manner (not as RMPhase
SecurityPhase etc)  it will be very common for handlers from various modules
to end up in the same phase.
But there are cases where we want to make sure that handlers are invoked in
a specific order. (for e.g. RM + Security).

This will increase the usage of the phase order feature. But current phase
order implementation only offers  simple functionalities (for e.g. we cannot
say a RM Inflow Handler have to be after the two addressing handlers, when
they are in the same phase).
Is it possible to make this feature a bit advance. I think it will be quite
useful.


Thanks.
Chamikara




On 3/8/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all;
>
> I added generic phases for each flow (as operation predefined phase) ,
> so if some module author specially Sandesha , WS-Security and addressing
> want to add handlers to operation phase its better if they are going use
> those phase . Otherwise if some one want to add new module he has to
> edit axis2.xml (if module want to add new phase as I know Sandesha dose
> so) , for me its not good for axis2.
>
> I just came up with some phase names , if you guys not happy with pls
> help me to improve that.
>
> inflow
> OperationInPhase
> outflow
> OperationOutPhase
> inFaultFlow
> OperationInFaultPhase
> outFaultFlow
> OperationOutFaultPhase
>
> N:B – This does not mean that module can not add new phase
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Deepal
> ................................................................
> ~Future is Open~
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: sandesha-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: sandesha-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>

Re: Generic phase for module authors

Posted by Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@gmail.com>.
Hi Deepal,

yes, it is easier when handlers have to be added only to the predefined
phases. The users will be able to add the module by a simple drag & drop.

But since these phases are named in a generic manner (not as RMPhase
SecurityPhase etc)  it will be very common for handlers from various modules
to end up in the same phase.
But there are cases where we want to make sure that handlers are invoked in
a specific order. (for e.g. RM + Security).

This will increase the usage of the phase order feature. But current phase
order implementation only offers  simple functionalities (for e.g. we cannot
say a RM Inflow Handler have to be after the two addressing handlers, when
they are in the same phase).
Is it possible to make this feature a bit advance. I think it will be quite
useful.


Thanks.
Chamikara




On 3/8/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all;
>
> I added generic phases for each flow (as operation predefined phase) ,
> so if some module author specially Sandesha , WS-Security and addressing
> want to add handlers to operation phase its better if they are going use
> those phase . Otherwise if some one want to add new module he has to
> edit axis2.xml (if module want to add new phase as I know Sandesha dose
> so) , for me its not good for axis2.
>
> I just came up with some phase names , if you guys not happy with pls
> help me to improve that.
>
> inflow
> OperationInPhase
> outflow
> OperationOutPhase
> inFaultFlow
> OperationInFaultPhase
> outFaultFlow
> OperationOutFaultPhase
>
> N:B – This does not mean that module can not add new phase
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Deepal
> ................................................................
> ~Future is Open~
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: sandesha-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: sandesha-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>

Re: Generic phase for module authors

Posted by Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@gmail.com>.
Hi Deepal,

yes, it is easier when handlers have to be added only to the predefined
phases. The users will be able to add the module by a simple drag & drop.

But since these phases are named in a generic manner (not as RMPhase
SecurityPhase etc)  it will be very common for handlers from various modules
to end up in the same phase.
But there are cases where we want to make sure that handlers are invoked in
a specific order. (for e.g. RM + Security).

This will increase the usage of the phase order feature. But current phase
order implementation only offers  simple functionalities (for e.g. we cannot
say a RM Inflow Handler have to be after the two addressing handlers, when
they are in the same phase).
Is it possible to make this feature a bit advance. I think it will be quite
useful.


Thanks.
Chamikara




On 3/8/06, Deepal jayasinghe <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all;
>
> I added generic phases for each flow (as operation predefined phase) ,
> so if some module author specially Sandesha , WS-Security and addressing
> want to add handlers to operation phase its better if they are going use
> those phase . Otherwise if some one want to add new module he has to
> edit axis2.xml (if module want to add new phase as I know Sandesha dose
> so) , for me its not good for axis2.
>
> I just came up with some phase names , if you guys not happy with pls
> help me to improve that.
>
> inflow
> OperationInPhase
> outflow
> OperationOutPhase
> inFaultFlow
> OperationInFaultPhase
> outFaultFlow
> OperationOutFaultPhase
>
> N:B – This does not mean that module can not add new phase
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Deepal
> ................................................................
> ~Future is Open~
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: sandesha-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: sandesha-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>