Hello Everyone,
Please find my comments inlined.
Deepal Jayasinghe wrote:
Hi Deepal,
See comments inline
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Deepal jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hi Sanka and all,
When I deploy a very simple POJO service it generates following as
the service section in WSDL. As I know this is not nice and we
need to fix this as soon as possible.
Why is it not nice? This gives us the ability to apply binding level
security correctly which is not possible with the endpoint addresses
we used to have.
As I replied earlier , you can figure out the SOAP version from the
SOAP message , so you do not need to send the SOAP version in the end
point address.
Why do you say it is redundant code? Previously we had
http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/foo as the SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2
binding endpoints. Now say that client picks the SOAP 1.1 binding
endpoint and accidentally sends SOAP 1.2 request. Here the right thing
would be to throw an exception saying incorrect SOAP version where as
Axis2 server won't complain which IMO is a bug. Now if you use
http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/foo.SOAP11Endpoint as the SOAP 1.1.
binding endpoint we can do a prior evaluation of the request and throw
an exception if we receive a SOAP 1.2 request which IMO is the correct
behavior.
It is not good to have
"SampleService.SampleServiceHttpSoap12Endpoint" as the service
address.
Y? I dont see any reason y its not good.
Well , we had a long discussion a long time ago and we agreed the
structure we had before. So something like structure of the end point
address we should not change.
I know that the structure of endpoint address is important that it is
something that we should not be mess around. That is the exact reason
why I posted[1] it to developer mailing list. However I think we should
be flexible enough to change what we agreed on if there are valid
reasons to do so and if we don't lose anything by doing it.
One reason for using [service].[port] would be that it allows the server
to do prior evaluations of SOAP requests hence make it less error-prone
(As I mention in my earlier)
Another reason would be that [service].[port] format makes lot of sense
if we want to support multiple policy alternatives scenario at the Axis2
server-side. Lets say a service requires strong authentication, but
gives the client multiple options of SSL mutual authentication,
username with a signature, SAML with a signature or Kerberos. It does it
via a policy in the services.xml which contains an alternative for each
scenario.
Now one option would be to do some processing of the request to figure
out the option the client has chosen and then do a complete evaluation
against that policy alternative. But it can be very expensive depending
of the complexity of each policy alternative and of cause the number of
policy alternatives which service exposes. Further there is a
possibility that some policy alternatives are indeterminate by only
looking at the request.
The other option would be to generate multiple endpoints s.t. each
endpoint would correspond to exactly one policy alternative during the
deployment time.
e.g.
<wsdl:service name="Version">
....
<wsdl:port name="VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithSSL"
binding="ns:VersionSoap11Binding">
<soap:address
location="http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/Version.VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithSSL"/>
</wsdl:port>
<wsdl:port name="VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithUsernameAndSignature"
binding="ns:VersionSoap11Binding">
<soap:address
location="http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/Version.VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithUsernameAndSignature"/>
</wsdl:port>
<wsdl:port name="VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithSAMLAndSignature"
binding="ns:VersionSoap11Binding">
<soap:address
location="http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/Version.VersionHttpSoap11EndpointSAMLAndSignature"/>
</wsdl:port>
<wsdl:port name="VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithKerberos"
binding="ns:VersionSoap11Binding">
<soap:address
location="http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/Version.VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithSSLWithKerberos"/>
</wsdl:port>
.....
</wsdl:service>
That way we can straight way say the option client as picked and
evaluate the quest based on the target policy alternative with IMO is a
better way of supporting multiple policy alternatives at the
server-side. We need to use [service].[port] format if we are to
implement the support for multiple policy alternatives feature.
Thanks & Regards,
Sanka
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/axis-dev@ws.apache.org/msg40047.html
We did not agree anywhere about this structure.
As Sanka has pointed out this has been discussed in the List. Nobody
had any objections to it. The only concern was not to break existing
code.
I am sorry for that , and I will go though that back and reply .
-Deepal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Sanka Samaranayake
WSO2 Inc.
http://sankas.blogspot.com/
http://www.wso2.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
