Damitha Kumarage wrote:
Hi Danushka,
We could easily wrap the base context functions in conf_ctx, op_ctx,
svc_ctx, svc_grp_ctx and msg_ctx. But this considerbly increase the
lines of code. As I remember this was the main reason for not doing it
previously. However I also agree that it is nice to have these wrapper
functions in main contexts.
And Danushka's proposal includes internal mutexes as well. i.e. when we
set/get some property to conf_ctx, only one thread can set/get which is
very useful. If we get base context and then set the property, we have
to have an external mutex and manage them, which is always a problem. I
am +1 to add the methods as Danushka suggested.
Regards,
Shankar.
Thanks,
Damitha
Danushka Menikkumbura wrote:
Hi Devs,
We have been using the base context of conf_ctx to keep custom
properties. What we normally do is, get the base context and use its
(axis2_ctx) API to set/get properties. And we use external mutexes
for synchronization. Why don't we have get/set calls in conf_ctx API
itself so that we can set/get properties without any hassle. And that
way we can use the mutex in conf_ctx to handle synchronization. I
think that is the cleaner way of accessing the base.
Any thoughts?
Danushka
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
S.Uthaiyashankar
Software Architect
WSO2 Inc.
http://wso2.com/ - "The Open Source SOA Company"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
