Hi Deepal:
As I understand we came to a conclusion that the only way to deploy handlers using module. So if some one want to add a handler he has to create module and write it module.xml correctly and engage that module. (I know the fact that it make simple case harder). But I do not think we should go ahead and change axis2.xml to configure the handler chain (I do not know , the community has to take a decision).
I disagree with this notion, unfortunately. :( I think the original idea behind Modules has gotten a little out of control....
Modules (i.e. *.mar with module.xml) should not, IMHO, be the *only* way to deploy handlers (I believe I was the originator of the idea, and I certainly did not intend that). It should also be trivial for someone to write a handler that does something like logging or some kind of message transformation and simply drop it in to the handler chain in a known place using axis2.xml or service.xml.
Modules (again, IMHO) are not supposed to be a way to *restrict* usage, they are supposed to be a way to *enable* better compositions of groups of handlers. It's great that we can deploy a number of handlers that have constrained relationships on execution order. But I don't understand why that should *stop* someone from just deploying individual handlers at will (subject to the same constraint validation rules).
Look at it this way - it's not as if you're even saying the user is disallowed from deploying custom handlers at all. They're free to do so... IF they're willing to make a module.xml and a .mar file/directory. Well, if they're free to do it that way, why not let them do it directly in axis2.xml or in service.xml for simplicity? Why would you *not* want this?
If there are some problems with phase lets us discuss that and finalize the stuff , I mean as I mentioned earlier I really do not like to give a way to configure handler chain in axis2.xml. That become minus point to axis2 , I mean current impl to deploy a module no need to modify any of the stuff , he just need to create a module and drop that into the module directory.
See above. I don't see a need to force people to do more work for the simple case. This would be like saying you can't use directories on your CLASSPATH, and you have to always jar up your classes (or worse that you need to write a jar for each new class you want to add to the classpath). Why not support both?
--Glen
