Glen Daniels wrote:
Sanjiva, you know me, I'm Mr. Architectural Purity, but unfortunately
there are cases where Handlers aren't the best, or the most natural, way
to deal with headers. If soap:header had never been added to WSDL,
maybe, but since it's there and the common idiom seems to be adding the
header as an extra parameter to the codegen'ed methods... we need to
allow the engine to recognize that those headers are OK to pass through.
Now, we certainly could come up with a handler-based solution (gen a
Stub/Skel, and that autodeploys a Handler who just marks the header as
processed), but I think it's easier to just allow registration in a way
similar to what Jeff did.
So I think we should carefully review, but keep the idea.
I'm not against a longer term fully general solution but I am opposed to
putting it into 1.3. This is a significant new feature added without
recent discussion and I request that it be removed at least for now. The
original issue can be handled with handlers as Jeff has already replied.
(Trying hard to avoid using negative numbers in emails as those appear
unpopular ;-).)
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
