Eran Chinthaka wrote: > I also agree with David here. > > Nandana, can you please explain why you need to hard code security > phases in to axis2.xml? Does this mean we need to have n number of > phases if Axis2 is supporting n WS-* spcs? Yes for the most commonally used module like Addressing , Sandesha and Security. > If that is the case then I feel there is something wrong with Axis2 > architecture itself. :) > > > I like/prefer to keep Axis2 to the minimum. I for one, and believe > most of other users, do not bother to use security at this time. I can > quote you very large scientific systems working with Axis2 without > WS-Security but with just transport level security. Yes I do agree with you , but just having security phase in the chain will do nothing unless you have handlers in the phase. > Why do we wanna have some set of phases, which I never need, hard > coded in to the system. > > I know, our security guru (you know who he is ;) ) will tell me that > it is not a harm to add one more phase in to Axis2. But why do we > wanna hack the system, without properly implementing it with dynamic > phases or whatever it is. I strongly believed and believe dynamic phase rules are more than what we want , its better if we can find a simple solution than that.
-Deepal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
