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 Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> on 2007/06/27 17:58:31 UTC
Re: [axis2] header processing by !handlers (was: Re: svn commit:
r549924 - in /webservices/axis2/trunk/java/modules: kernel/src/org/apache/axis2/description/
kernel/src/org/apache/axis2/engine/ metadata/src/org/apache/axis2/jaxws/description/impl/
me
Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> Sanjiva, you know me, I'm Mr. Architectural Purity, but unfortunately
> there are cases where Handlers aren't the best, or the most natural, way
> to deal with headers. If soap:header had never been added to WSDL,
> maybe, but since it's there and the common idiom seems to be adding the
> header as an extra parameter to the codegen'ed methods... we need to
> allow the engine to recognize that those headers are OK to pass through.
> Now, we certainly could come up with a handler-based solution (gen a
> Stub/Skel, and that autodeploys a Handler who just marks the header as
> processed), but I think it's easier to just allow registration in a way
> similar to what Jeff did.
>
> So I think we should carefully review, but keep the idea.
I'm not against a longer term fully general solution but I am opposed to
putting it into 1.3. This is a significant new feature added without
recent discussion and I request that it be removed at least for now. The
original issue can be handled with handlers as Jeff has already replied.
(Trying hard to avoid using negative numbers in emails as those appear
unpopular ;-).)
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [axis2] header processing by !handlers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good Jeff.
On 6/28/07, Jeff Barrett <ba...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for all the feedback. I think we need to break this up into two
> different threads of discussion:
> - What to do in 1.3 (so there are no API changes)
> - How to fix this correctly in post 1.3 for all the scenarios (which will
> include API changes for headers and roles, plugability, and such)
>
> I'll start a new thread for the post 1.3 discussion.
>
> For the 1.3 discussion, I agree with David Illsley's observation that the
> JAXWS-handler approach and marking headers as "processed" even though they
> have not been is a "hack". But I also understand Sanjiva's concern about
> introducing an API that doesn't necessarily solve all the problems this
> close to 1.3. So, I'm thinking through if the JAXWS handler hack will
> solve the specific issues my commit (and a few subsequent changes based on
> it) was addressing. Assuming it will, I'll post a description of how I
> intend to refactor it to remove the API introduced on AxisOperation. This
> refactoring will be done under
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2853 , but note that the 1.3
> solution will likely not be pluggable, just workable.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
> IBM Software Group - WebSphere Web Services Development
> Phone: 512-838-4587 or Tie Line 678-4587
> Internet e-mail and Sametime ID: barrettj@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>
> 06/27/2007 07:44 PM
> Please respond to
> axis-dev@ws.apache.org
>
>
> To
> axis-dev@ws.apache.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [axis2] header processing by !handlers
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Glen Daniels wrote:
> >
> > So we're not going to support <soap:header> in 1.3 either then - or at
> > least not completely, in that if someone actually sends us one of the
> > headers they specified in the WSDL with MU switched on, we'll barf?
>
> Hmm. Yes I think this is what I'm saying. I believe that's been the case
> since Axis1 days right?
>
> > If you're vetoing a commit (which it sounds like you are?), fire away
> > with the -1s! However... I'm not entirely sure that "adding a feature
> > without discussion" is sufficient technical justification for a -1,
> > though. If we were doing review-then-commit, sure, but we're doing
> > commit-then-review. What do you think?
>
> I was talking about vetoing a commit on the basis that its not the right
> solution and that a better solution needs more fundamental design. I was
> avoiding doing it and suggesting that we don't do this feature at this
> point.
>
> > Not sure exactly what the right thing here is, but I think I'd prefer to
>
> > leave it in in some form rather than having JAXWS rely on a
> > Handler-based mechanism....
>
> Problem is "some form" is not a good model because whatever we put in is
> permanent and this is a key API that'd touch a lot including codegen. If
> JAX-WS rely on a handler based mechanism for now I'd rather let get go and
>
> talk thru some of the scenarios and figure out the right solution (which
> is very likely along the path you suggested).
>
> Sanjiva.
> --
> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
> Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/
> Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
> Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [axis2] header processing by !handlers
Posted by Jeff Barrett <ba...@us.ibm.com>.
Hi All,
Thanks for all the feedback. I think we need to break this up into two
different threads of discussion:
- What to do in 1.3 (so there are no API changes)
- How to fix this correctly in post 1.3 for all the scenarios (which will
include API changes for headers and roles, plugability, and such)
I'll start a new thread for the post 1.3 discussion.
For the 1.3 discussion, I agree with David Illsley's observation that the
JAXWS-handler approach and marking headers as "processed" even though they
have not been is a "hack". But I also understand Sanjiva's concern about
introducing an API that doesn't necessarily solve all the problems this
close to 1.3. So, I'm thinking through if the JAXWS handler hack will
solve the specific issues my commit (and a few subsequent changes based on
it) was addressing. Assuming it will, I'll post a description of how I
intend to refactor it to remove the API introduced on AxisOperation. This
refactoring will be done under
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2853 , but note that the 1.3
solution will likely not be pluggable, just workable.
Thanks,
Jeff
IBM Software Group - WebSphere Web Services Development
Phone: 512-838-4587 or Tie Line 678-4587
Internet e-mail and Sametime ID: barrettj@us.ibm.com
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>
06/27/2007 07:44 PM
Please respond to
axis-dev@ws.apache.org
To
axis-dev@ws.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: [axis2] header processing by !handlers
Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> So we're not going to support <soap:header> in 1.3 either then - or at
> least not completely, in that if someone actually sends us one of the
> headers they specified in the WSDL with MU switched on, we'll barf?
Hmm. Yes I think this is what I'm saying. I believe that's been the case
since Axis1 days right?
> If you're vetoing a commit (which it sounds like you are?), fire away
> with the -1s! However... I'm not entirely sure that "adding a feature
> without discussion" is sufficient technical justification for a -1,
> though. If we were doing review-then-commit, sure, but we're doing
> commit-then-review. What do you think?
I was talking about vetoing a commit on the basis that its not the right
solution and that a better solution needs more fundamental design. I was
avoiding doing it and suggesting that we don't do this feature at this
point.
> Not sure exactly what the right thing here is, but I think I'd prefer to
> leave it in in some form rather than having JAXWS rely on a
> Handler-based mechanism....
Problem is "some form" is not a good model because whatever we put in is
permanent and this is a key API that'd touch a lot including codegen. If
JAX-WS rely on a handler based mechanism for now I'd rather let get go and
talk thru some of the scenarios and figure out the right solution (which
is very likely along the path you suggested).
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [axis2] header processing by !handlers
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> So we're not going to support <soap:header> in 1.3 either then - or at
> least not completely, in that if someone actually sends us one of the
> headers they specified in the WSDL with MU switched on, we'll barf?
Hmm. Yes I think this is what I'm saying. I believe that's been the case
since Axis1 days right?
> If you're vetoing a commit (which it sounds like you are?), fire away
> with the -1s! However... I'm not entirely sure that "adding a feature
> without discussion" is sufficient technical justification for a -1,
> though. If we were doing review-then-commit, sure, but we're doing
> commit-then-review. What do you think?
I was talking about vetoing a commit on the basis that its not the right
solution and that a better solution needs more fundamental design. I was
avoiding doing it and suggesting that we don't do this feature at this point.
> Not sure exactly what the right thing here is, but I think I'd prefer to
> leave it in in some form rather than having JAXWS rely on a
> Handler-based mechanism....
Problem is "some form" is not a good model because whatever we put in is
permanent and this is a key API that'd touch a lot including codegen. If
JAX-WS rely on a handler based mechanism for now I'd rather let get go and
talk thru some of the scenarios and figure out the right solution (which
is very likely along the path you suggested).
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [axis2] header processing by !handlers
Posted by Glen Daniels <gl...@thoughtcraft.com>.
Hi Sanjiva!
>> So I think we should carefully review, but keep the idea.
>
> I'm not against a longer term fully general solution but I am opposed to
> putting it into 1.3. This is a significant new feature added without
> recent discussion and I request that it be removed at least for now. The
> original issue can be handled with handlers as Jeff has already replied.
So we're not going to support <soap:header> in 1.3 either then - or at
least not completely, in that if someone actually sends us one of the
headers they specified in the WSDL with MU switched on, we'll barf?
> (Trying hard to avoid using negative numbers in emails as those appear
> unpopular ;-).)
:)
If you're vetoing a commit (which it sounds like you are?), fire away
with the -1s! However... I'm not entirely sure that "adding a feature
without discussion" is sufficient technical justification for a -1,
though. If we were doing review-then-commit, sure, but we're doing
commit-then-review. What do you think?
Not sure exactly what the right thing here is, but I think I'd prefer to
leave it in in some form rather than having JAXWS rely on a
Handler-based mechanism....
Thanks,
--Glen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org