Re: [Axis2] What should we have in AXIOM ?

[Dasarath Weeratunge <da...@yahoo.com>]

--- Eran Chinthaka <ch...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This will some relate to the thread "Doubt on Detail
> Element in SOAPFault". 
> 
> AXIOM was not meant to check the compliance with
> SOAP spec or anything else.
> It will just hold the infoset. The reason behind me
> putting a SAAJ like api
> on top of OM was to provide developer convenience.
> For example, rather than
> saying element.getFirstElement(), developers love to
> use
> envelope.getHeader(). So, that was the intention of
> providing that sort of
> SOAP jargon in to Axiom. This was our initial idea. 
> 
> But later, some have put some checks in to the AXIOM
> SOAP api. And the
> earlier thread also was asking about this
> validation.
> 
> So I have a small question on this. What should we
> have in AXIOM ??
> 
> 1. Shall we "KISS" Axiom, and let it be just a info
> set holder. 
>     - If this is the case, this will not affect the
> performance, due to
> validation and stuff. And if we make it like this
> how we gonna provide
> validation or do we need to provide validation. Can
> we leave this up to the
> user ?
> 2. Shall we make AXIOM SOAP stuff do validation on
> SOAP 1.1 spec as well. 
> - This will definitely affect the performance. 
> 
> 
> IMHO, I prefer option 1, which is basically my
> initial idea as well.

+1 for option 1. Keep AXIOM as simple as possible and
layer everything on top it in a manner that when we
want performance we can take all that fancy code off
through some switch! I would like to see AXIOM by
default to be in this mode and if someone wants it to
do error checking, schema aware parsing, builder
extensions, etc. etc. he has to go an explicitly set
those flags.

One more comment about programmer convenience. AXIOM
was designed with performance in mind. Hence certain
methods were introduced which were obviously not the
most convenient methods to use and certain others were
consciously left out. However, since then many methods
have been added and certain architectural changes too
have been made considering requests from users. IMO
this trend should stop.

--Dasarath




> 
> What do you all think about this ?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Eran Chinthaka
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 

Re: [Axis2] What should we have in AXIOM ?

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

> +1 for option 1. Keep AXIOM as simple as possible and
> layer everything on top it in a manner that when we
> want performance we can take all that fancy code off
> through some switch! I would like to see AXIOM by
> default to be in this mode and if someone wants it to
> do error checking, schema aware parsing, builder
> extensions, etc. etc. he has to go an explicitly set
> those flags.
> 
> One more comment about programmer convenience. AXIOM
> was designed with performance in mind. Hence certain
> methods were introduced which were obviously not the
> most convenient methods to use and certain others were
> consciously left out. However, since then many methods
> have been added and certain architectural changes too
> have been made considering requests from users. IMO
> this trend should stop.
Hi Dasarath; 

You need to name the *certain* methods and architectural changes for
your comments to helpful? I have myself requested many changes to OM
and I belive there are lot that are crucial.

AXIOM is subjected to evolve on the requirements yet I too agree that
changing too often do not help it. But the each change should be
discussed individual basis on their merits and deficiencies and
decided.
Thanks
Srinath