+1 from me. Glen please go ahead and clean it up :) I agree with the principle, default should come from axis2.xml
thanks, dims On 10/25/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Deepal, Sanjiva: > > >>> What I'm trying to say is that we should NOT hard-code the dispatch > >>> order, we should have it simply exist as configuration in the default > >>> axis2.xml file. > >> > >> +1 .. Deepal what's the advantage of having it fixed programmatically > >> instead of being read in from the config? > > > > In the first place we did not think that we want to change Dispatching > > order, but when it come to WS-S we realized that there are instance that > > require different dispatching order. > > And in the mean while 99% of the time no one is going to change the > > order so its worth to hard code that. > > -1 from me on that one. Putting it in the config as a simple handler > ordering thing just like any other seems to make so much more sense! If > you don't want to change it, then there's no problem, it'll work in the > default way. If you *do* want to change it, it's obvious how to do it > and there aren't two ways of doing the same thing. I also think > hard-coding this stuff makes it confusing when you look at axis2.xml > (not everything is "really" there). > > We have a great mechanism for deploying and ordering handlers - > dispatchers are nothing special, they are just handlers - so why not use it? > > > [...] > >>> or my suggested simpler syntax: > >>> > >>> <phaseOrder> > >>> <phase name="Dispatch"> > >>> <handler name="MyDispatcher" > >>> class="package.MyDispatcher"/> > >>> </phase> > >>> </phaseOrder> > >> > >> Does the latter syntax imply we can remove the first form? If so +1 for > >> the latter otherwise I don't think we need alternate syntax for this > >> type of stuff because changing dispatchers type work is not a regular > >> user activity .. or even close to it. > > (responding to Sanjiva) This isn't about dispatchers alone, this is > about handlers in general. The idea is that the user might want to put > particular handlers into a Phase as the "default contents" of that > Phase. The above is a quick + clean syntax for doing that. > > You *also* need the other syntax because you might be deploying handlers > in a module.xml, when the Phases have already been defined and populated > and you're just adding to the existing list. It's possible we could > accept only the phase-based syntax in axis2.xml and both in module.xml, > but I think both should be usable anywhere. > > > In the second approach it leads to configure handler chain using > > axis2.xml , I mean we have no control over avoiding that if we give that > > flexibility. And other thing is though Dispatcher is a handler , it can > > not override invoke() method (if it extend from AbstarctDispatcher) so > > we have to treat dispatcher as a dispatcher (there are some logic that > > need to be there). > > See my original message on this thread - first, I don't see a need for > AbstractDispatcher at all. Second, when deploying a handler it doesn't > matter how that class is built as long as it implements Handler, so you > could still freely use the current "dispatchers" as normal handlers. > > I very much like the ability to quickly configure the handler chain > using axis2.xml. As long as nothing creates conflicts, why shouldn't we > allow this? > > I'm willing to do the work to code this up. > > --Glen > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
