Dims, I couldn't find this on the axis2 mail archives, that thread was having the subject "Improvement to mail transport from a Synapse use case" and posted by saminda to the axis-dev.
Here is the relevant thread on Synapse [ http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/synapse-user/200712.mbox/thread] Thanks, Ruwan On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ruwan, > > How about a pointer to a public discussion on why SMTP Transport changes were debated? :) > > - -- dims > > > > > Ruwan Linton wrote: > | Glen, > | > | I agree with you. But my concern is the history. That is, when ever we > | (synapse) wanted some transport specific feature for synapse to be added to > | axis2 transports axis2 community was not accepting them due to many reasons > | most of them are valid for web services, but from the synapse point of view, > | we do not need to (and should not) bound to the web services. Isn't it? > | > | This behavior is affecting the evolution of synapse and that is why we went > | ahead and developed our own transports. (Best example is the SMTP transport) > | > | Thanks, > | Ruwan > | > | On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | wrote: > | > |> Hi Ruwan: > |> > |> If a given transport really only has relevance in the Synapse environment, > |> then of course that transport has no need to exist outside Synapse. But if > |> a transport is generically useful, I'd prefer to see it somewhere in WS > |> space as opposed to specifically within Synapse. And if some generic > |> transport needs tweaking in particular ways for Synapse, then those ways > |> should be exposed as configuration or plug-points on the transport, which > |> get exercised by Synapse (but also tested in the transport build). Example > |> - the nhttp transport could just include a callback property which, if set, > |> passes the 202 to a listener and ignores it otherwise (perhaps that's > |> exactly the way it works). In the SMTP case, we should discuss what > |> happens, but again I don't see any issue with making a clean and useful > |> general SMTP transport - why should there need to be two of them?? > |> > |> Here's my use case. Someone wants to use nhttp, or JMS, or SMTP, with > |> Axis2. They're not a Synapse user and are not interested in downloading > |> Synapse. I want to make sure that this user can easily locate, download, > |> and install the transport they want. At the same time I want the Axis2 and > |> the Synapse communities both sharing their skills to make the best set of > |> transports available for Axis2 and of course Axis2+Synapse. > |> > |> I'm not wedded to the details, as long as we can make that happen. It > |> seems to me right now that ws-commons/transports is a better way to do this > |> than having lots of extension transports in Synapse, but I'm willing to be > |> convinced otherwise. > |> > |> Thanks, > |> --Glen > |> > |> Ruwan Linton wrote: > |> > |>> I forgot to mention that, of cause one can use these transports with > |>> knowing the limitations and issues of those, when working directly with > |>> axis2 > |>> > |>> Thanks, > |>> Ruwan > |>> > |>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Ruwan Linton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto: > |>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > |>> > |>> Hi Dims, Glen and all, > |>> > |>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Davanum Srinivas > |>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > |>> > > > > | Glen, > | > | At this point, Can we please agree that it's better for the > | people who actually work on it have their way :) > | > | > |>>> +1 for this idea ... and one more thing is that; > | > |>>> Although the transports which resides under synapse code base are > |>>> just axis2 transports, there are some special cases that synapse > |>>> needs from its transports. For example; > | > | * nhttp transport requires 202 Accepted HTTP messages to be > | injected inside to synapse so that it can complete mediation > | of one-way messages as well as we need those messages to be > | injected on the separateListener case, where as axis2 should > | just neglect those HTTP messages. > | * Same with 500 Internal Server Error on nhttp > | * smtp transport requires to treat all the Cc headers and Cc the > | message to all the specified addresses (we have discussed this > | earlier on axis2 and this is wrong according to the WS-MEPs, > | because there are many outs) > | > |>>> There are a number of synapse specific logic inside synapse > |>>> transports, because synapse is not purely bound to WS space, but it > |>>> is a mediation framework (ESB) which should support most of the > |>>> other scenarios going out of the WS space. There for these > |>>> transports may not directly work with axis2 and it is not at all a > |>>> good idea to move them out from synapse code base. > | > |>>> Thanks, > |>>> Ruwan > | > | > | > | thanks, > | dims > | > | > | Glen Daniels wrote: > | | Asankha C. Perera wrote: > | |> Dims > | |>> - there should not be stale copies > | |>> - people who work on them should work where they want to. > | |> +1 to both! > | | > | | Agreed - I'd just prefer people wanted to work on them under > | WS/Axis. :) > | | > | |> I'd like to maintain these under Synapse.. We wrote these > | transports > | |> primarily for use by Synapse, and now we have JMS, > | NIO-HTTP/S, Mail, > | |> VFS (File), FIX and AMQP already.. These belong to a separate > | Maven > | |> module thats published to the Apache snapshots and Maven > |>>> Central > | |> repos, and > | | > | | Hm. So this is a bit of a separate conversation, but *each* > | of the > | | transports should be its own deployable artifact. If I want > | the AMQP > | | transport for some work I'm doing, I don't want to bother > | downloading > | | all the others.... Wherever they end up we should fix that!! > | | > | |> this JAR does not depend on the Synapse codebase at all. > | Anyone who > | |> wishes to use these can do so without any problems > | whatsoever, and > | |> raise JIRA's for bugs/enhancements where the code is actually > | maintained. > | | > | | Yeah. I just think this makes a lot more sense under WS. > | | > | |>> | | These transports (JMS, NIO, whatever) are going to be > | generally > | |>> useful to any Axis2 user, so why make them go look in > |>>> Synapse's > | |>> codebase for them? > | |> I agree,.. however these transports were written by the > |>>> Synapse > | |> community for primary use by them. So instead of asking them > |>>> to > | |> maintain the code they write somewhere else - for the > | convenience of > | |> the secondary users, why not clearly document the available > | options > | |> under Axis2 and where one could download these extension > | transports > | |> developed by the Synapse community? > | | > | | Sure, I'm not saying that wouldn't work - what's really > | important to me > | | is that Axis2 users get a clear picture of the available > | transports when > | | they download Axis2 and use our website. This is both to avoid > | | duplication of effort and to enable users to use the richest > | set of > | | components available. It seems to me that the most natural way > |>>> to > | | achieve this is to contribute new transports to ws-commons or > | Axis2. > | | > | | Also consider this - wouldn't it be cool to be able to run the > | Axis2 > | | test suite (which is presumably much more comprehensive than > | Synapse's > | | testing of Axis2) over each of the transports that Synapse > | originally > | | built? I would think that might demonstrate some issues that > | Synapse > | | itself might not find, thus enabling the transports to be > | improved. > | | > | | But if the community wants to keep developing these under > | Synapse, then > | | we definitely need some pointers in the Axis2 code and web > | pages, and > | | those pointers need to be maintained. > | | > | | Thanks, > | | --Glen > | | > | | > | > |>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | | For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | | > |>> > |>> > |>> > > |>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > |>> > |>> > |>> > |>> > |>> -- Ruwan Linton > |>> http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform" > |>> > |>> > |>> > |>> -- > |>> Ruwan Linton > |>> http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform" > |>> > |> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > |> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |> > |> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) > > iD8DBQFIDjKKgNg6eWEDv1kRAh1oAKDIPJ82Fr+3ddfsLKFVWqM4kNDIsQCdENFH > aJEx3JawYLsf7TzW9ybtGYc= > =8Rqf > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Ruwan Linton http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
