Well, that's kinda my point - if we *know* it's a requirement why is no one complaining that they don't work and it took test to find this out ? This suggests we should lose them until we actually get some one who really needs them rather than keeping old API's commented or not. It justs adds confusion to what is a BIG code base :-)
John Hawkins
| Roshan Weerasuriya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17/01/2005 09:47
|
|
hi John,
Since we know that this is a requiement by Handler writers, instead of
removing them shall we just comment and keep them, so that when we
implement we can uncomment and continue.
Roshan
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 15:38, John Hawkins wrote:
> Hi Roshan,
>
> You seem to suggest that you have actual people who need these
> methods? If so, then they should be implemented (asap?). If not then I
> suggest we scrap them to avoid confusion and not have a middle ground
> . If people need the function back at a later date then we can use CVS
> to get back the old code.
>
>
> John Hawkins
>
>
>
> Roshan Weerasuriya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 17/01/2005
> 09:31:43:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > These are methods which are required by Hanlder writher who need
> access
> > to the body. We did some work on this and they have more different
> > requirements on accessing/setting the SOAP Body. Implementing all of
> > those methods which are pointed here could be usefull for Handler
> > writers.
> >
> > If you are going to remove these what abt having a JIRA issue on
> this so
> > that we will not forget it.
> >
> > Of can we have API comments such as "This method is not supported
> > currently, but will be implemented shortly or something like that"
> and
> > let these methods be in the API.
> >
> > Any how these are different requirements which are needed by Handler
> > writers.
> >
> > Roshan
> >
> > On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:14, John Hawkins wrote:
> > > Anyone got an opinion on removal of these methods - or how come
> > > they're in this state?
> > >
> > > John Hawkins
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Andrew Perry2/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > 14/01/2005 16:10
> > > Please respond to
> > > "Apache AXIS C Developers List"
> > > To
> > > "Apache AXIS C
> > > Developers List"
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > cc
> > > "Apache AXIS C
> > > Developers List"
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > Subject
> > > Re:
> > > SoapSerialiser
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The same seems to be true for IHandlerSoapDeSerializer
> > >
> > > virtual xsd__hexBinary AXISCALL getBodyAsHexBinary()=0;
> > > virtual xsd__base64Binary AXISCALL getBodyAsBase64Binary()=0;
> > > virtual AxisChar* AXISCALL getBodyAsChar()=0;
> > >
> > > These are only partially implemented or not implemented and should
> be
> > > removed from the public API until the implementation is complete.
> > >
> > > The getBodyAsChar() method also has a malloc() in it which
> shouldn't
> > > be
> > > used. For memory allocation news should be used. This method seems
> to
> > > be
> > > 'in progress' and not finished.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Andrew Perry
> > > IBM Web Services Client for C/C++
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Mail Point 127
> > > IBM UK Laboratories. Hursley Park, Winchester, Hants. SO21 2JN
> > > Tel. Internal 249828 External + 44 (0)1962 819828
> > > Fax. + 44(0)1962 818080
> > >
> > > John Hawkins/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14/01/2005 15:29:31:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > +1 for removing.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody has requested this function and there is no impl.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John Hawkins
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Perry2/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 14/01/2005 15:19
> > > >
> > > > Please respond to
> > > > "Apache AXIS C Developers List"
> > > >
> > > > To
> > > >
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > cc
> > > >
> > > > Subject
> > > >
> > > > SoapSerialiser
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've been writing handler tests to test the public APIs
> available to
> > > > handlers and have come across several of the public APIs which
> have
> > > empty
> > > > implementations in the code and //TODO comments.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a plan to actually implement these methods?
> > > >
> > > > I feel that these methods should not be in the public API and
> should
> > > be
> > > > removed until there is an implementation behind them.
> > > >
> > > > Examples of these are :
> > > >
> > > > IHandlerSoapSerialiser->getBodyAsString
> > > > IHandlerSoapSerialiser->setBodyAsHexBinary
> > > > IHandlerSoapSerialiser->setBodyAsBase64Binary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Perry
> > > > IBM Web Services Client for C/C++
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Mail Point 127
> > > > IBM UK Laboratories. Hursley Park, Winchester, Hants. SO21 2JN
> > > > Tel. Internal 249828 External + 44 (0)1962 819828
> > > > Fax. + 44(0)1962 818080
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
