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 -----
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
|
- Re: [Axis2] Possible bug in the AxisEngine.resume() meth... Deepal Jayasinghe
-