Hi, Yes I am truly with option 1. When looking back at the things I feel the same as Dasarath. We could have left out certain changes all together. Currently I feel the architecture is corrupted to a certain extent. If someone goes through the class hierarchies there will be certain places where its not streamlined. I feel what we did with implementing SOAP classes was not suitable.( Not saying it is wrong. A SOAP object hierarchy is a must!. But the way we have implemented the SOAP classes is "too tight" with OM). We should have thought of a looser implementation. Builder checks for SOAP compliancy and everything else that matters should have been more "stream lined". Since we have a lot of work ahead that depends on OM I am ok with any effort to refactor and correct anything with OM right now.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:38:58 -0800 (PST), Dasarath Weeratunge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are in doubt about how much recent > architectural changes may have affected (or killed) OM > performance please look at the following test results: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/axis/trunk/archive/java/scratch/dasarath/om/$1/ > > --Dasarath > > --- Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > > > What do you all think about this ? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Eran Chinthaka > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- Ajith Ranabahu
