Shawn Dahlen wrote:
It seems to me that the WS Addressing spec is meant to solve these issues. The To field allows for approriate routing to a given endpoint (the service) and the Action field provides dispatching to an operation (although the endpoint may have just a generic receive method and do manual dispatching).
This has been my thought when I wrote about a low level messaging model.
Does everyone believe that WS Addressing should be fundamental to the core engine?
hi,
i think WSA is integral part of engine already?
i agree that if possible WSA:Action/To should be used to do routing (are there definitive rules how to do it?)
as of original question about mail transport receiving messages: i think that To: in mail should be used in similiar manner to HTTP GET/POST URI to do dispatch as well.
in other words i see no problem with using Mail:To as REQUEST_URI (and mybe combine it with Mail:Subject) that is set before engine.receive(MC) ...
thanks,
alek
-----Original Message-----
From: Ajith Ranabahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:54:30 To:axis-dev@ws.apache.org, Srinath Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Axis2] REQUEST_URI in mail transport
Hi, Yes I agree that this is a broader issue than just the SOAPAction. The algorithm you suggest seems to be fair enough for service resolution. However I suppose we should look more into what others are doing (afterall its not only axis that is there in the world :)) and decide the alternate branches of our service/operation resolution algorithm depending on that.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:42:04 +0600, Srinath Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me extend the Q bit .. as it is not only the SMTP that bring the Q
At the web services we need to identify two things 1) Service Name 2) Operation name
to obtain the information we have the following 1) To address, (if the address not presents the request URI for HTTP and the mail address for the SMTP case ) 2) SOAP actions 3) if rpc-* or doc-literal-wrapped from the SOAP message
we want to handle this for (at least) SMTP & HTTP each of these can have a separator to have two information. I purpose the following algorithm to
1 try to get the service name from the To address.. that is basically find string $A in the To address that Marches the patters */services/$A 2.1 if 1 is success, if (style == rpc || wrapped){ find the operation from the Envelope } if(style == doc){ pick the operation name from the SOAPAction } 2.2. if 1failed, try to pick up the service from the SOAP action. Then the style must be rpc or doc literal wrapped as no way to find operation
Does the algorithm is fair enough?
few issues are 1) do we need escape characters in the to addess or the SOAPAction to let one entry have two information? 2) Are going to use the things like NSURI of the firat element to locate service/operation 3) do we need configuration support to change the order of the things taking the precedence.
thoughts Srinath
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:54:52 +0600, Chamil Thanthrimudalige
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi all,
Well let me start by telling how I have setup the mail transport code for the time being. [Currently working on a maillet that can work with James.]
There is a poling thread that listens to a specified mail address and when a mail comes to that address it will be fetched; broken down; MC made and this MC will be used to call the engine.receive(MC) method.
My problem is that since it is required to set a REQUEST_URI (which will be used to find out the service that should be called) before calling engine.receive(MC), what can I use to set this?
Using the email address might cause a problem because then for different services the mail listener will have to listen to many email address. Before the current change I set the service using a value stored on the mail header.
Best Regards, Chamil Thanthrimudalige.
-- The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
