Glen Daniels wrote:
So we're not going to support <soap:header> in 1.3 either then - or at least not completely, in that if someone actually sends us one of the headers they specified in the WSDL with MU switched on, we'll barf?
Hmm. Yes I think this is what I'm saying. I believe that's been the case since Axis1 days right?
If you're vetoing a commit (which it sounds like you are?), fire away with the -1s! However... I'm not entirely sure that "adding a feature without discussion" is sufficient technical justification for a -1, though. If we were doing review-then-commit, sure, but we're doing commit-then-review. What do you think?
I was talking about vetoing a commit on the basis that its not the right solution and that a better solution needs more fundamental design. I was avoiding doing it and suggesting that we don't do this feature at this point.
Not sure exactly what the right thing here is, but I think I'd prefer to leave it in in some form rather than having JAXWS rely on a Handler-based mechanism....
Problem is "some form" is not a good model because whatever we put in is permanent and this is a key API that'd touch a lot including codegen. If JAX-WS rely on a handler based mechanism for now I'd rather let get go and talk thru some of the scenarios and figure out the right solution (which is very likely along the path you suggested).
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]
