Re: [Axis2] Possible bug in the AxisEngine.resume() method

[Deepal Jayasinghe]

Hi Chamikara;   I am not sure I am giving the right answer, any way the reason behind treating Message reciver seperately is the following    say that you add message receiver as the end of the operation chain and you just call msgCnx.invoke(); , what if some one change the handler chain at the runtime to add a handler after the message receiver. To avoid that kind of scenario we treat Message Receiver separately.     Thanks,  Deepal ................................................................ ~Future is Open~ ----- Original Message ----- From: Chamikara Jayalath To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Axis2] Possible bug in the AxisEngine.resume() method Hi Glen, Since TransportSender already extend the Handler interface it can be easily attached to the end of the handler chain. But MessageReceiver is a seperate interface and this does not extend Handler. Are you suggesting that the MessageReceiver should extend the Handler interface. (also this will remove the need for a  MessageReceiver.receive() method  since the invoke() method from the Handler interface can be directly used). (I don't know weather there is a special reason for MessageReceiver not being a Handler in the current implementation) Thank you, Camikara On 12/16/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >     So the end result is a single execution chain which pauses/resumes >     simply by indexes, updates itself at operation dispatch, and no extra >     logic to split receiving/sending. > >     Sound reasonable? > > +1 OK, cool.  I'm more than willing to do this work next week (am on vacation as of tonight for the weekend), but assuming others are good with this, please feel free to commit the patch and/or the refactoring before then if you wish. --Glen