> The fact that Axis2 does this wacky thing actually made it HARDER for
Just to chime in here - I agree with Dan that Axis2 *is* doing something wacky here by tacking on the port name to the endpoint. As far as the "we should throw an error if a SOAP 1.1 endpoint gets SOAP 1.2" argument is concerned I don't buy in to that. "Be strict in what you emit and liberal in what you accept" seems to apply here. If a single endpoint URL can accept both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2, that is a feature! +1 to eliminating the wackiness in the address. -- Tom Jordahl -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:03 AM To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: [Axis2] Generating a wrong port address for POJO deployment Dims, On May 12, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > I was talking about moving JAXWS services and clients across > implementations. Not on the wire interop. Sorry it was not clearer. I'm not sure how that applies here. Axis2 is the only JAX-WS implementation that does this funky Endpoint.Port URL thing. CXF certainly does not and neither does the reference implementation. Both of them use a deployment descriptor thing to allow the user to specify the full URL that the service is deployed on. The fact that Axis2 does this wacky thing actually made it HARDER for the tck stuff as Jarek had to do a bit more work to deal with the different URL's that Axis uses compared to CXF and the RI (both of which use the same URL's). Dan > > > thanks, > -- dims > > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Amila Suriarachchi > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Davanum Srinivas >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Sanka, >>> >>> for one thing, i haven't seen anyone else use it. another thing, >>> makes >>> it *slightly* more difficult for interop work and for tck work. >> >> I don't have any experience with the tck. But I think it should not >> have a >> problem with the >> interop. please see this wsdl >> http://131.107.72.15/WSAddressingCR_Service_WCF/WSAddressing10.svc?wsdl >> >> This is a wsdl from .Net interop site. They generate different >> ports for >> different bindings and if >> we send a wrong message (i.e soap11 to soap12 port) to a wrong port >> it gives >> an exception. >> >> IMO it is better to have mechanism to dispatch the binding using >> request url >> information. if we take the >> contract first side, one wsdl can have many Soap11 or Soap12 >> bindings with >> different polices. In that case >> we need to have this kind of mechanism. At least to configure it >> using >> services.xml as keith has mentioned. >> >> thanks, >> Amila. >> >> >>> It >>> also makes it more difficult for people who want to design their own >>> URI's for their web services and need complete control (yes, there >>> are >>> a few of those!). Yes, we can shove it down their throats, but that >>> does not mean we should... >>> >>> thanks, >>> dims >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Sanka Samaranayake <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > >> wrote: >>>> Deepal jayasinghe wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> IMO which is wrong. If he picks 1.1 then should send a 1.1 >>>>> request. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is exactly my point. If he picks SOAP 1.1 then you *should* >>>> send a >>>> SOAP 1.1 request. If he sends a SOAP 1.2 request we *should* >>>> throw an >>>> exception saying incorrect SOAP version. Earlier we were *not* >>>> doing >> that >>>> because we had the *same* endpoint address for both bindings. >>>> However >> now we >>>> can do that because by looking at the endpoint we can decide the >>>> exact >>>> binding which the client has picked. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> Only problem I have is having the SOAP11Endpoint name in the >>>>> address , >>>>> >>>> >>>> Please explain why do you have a problem with [service].[port] >>>> format ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I do not mind sending that as some where else. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Where would you suggest that we should have the port name s.t. we >>>> can >>>> decide the intended port (or the binding) of the request and do >>>> throw an >>>> exception if the client has sent a SOAP 1.2 request by error >>>> where he >> would >>>> have actually intended the SOAP 1.1 endpoint ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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.VersionHttpSoap11 EndpointWithSSL >> "/> >>>>>> </wsdl:port> >>>>>> <wsdl:port >> name="VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithUsernameAndSignature" >>>> binding="ns:VersionSoap11Binding"> >>>>>> <soap:address >>>> >> location="http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/Version.VersionHttpSoap11 EndpointWithUsernameAndSignature >> "/> >>>>>> </wsdl:port> >>>>>> <wsdl:port name="VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithSAMLAndSignature" >>>> binding="ns:VersionSoap11Binding"> >>>>>> <soap:address >>>> >> location="http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/Version.VersionHttpSoap11 EndpointSAMLAndSignature >> "/> >>>>>> </wsdl:port> >>>>>> <wsdl:port name="VersionHttpSoap11EndpointWithKerberos" >>>> binding="ns:VersionSoap11Binding"> >>>>>> <soap:address >>>> >> location="http://localhost:8080/axis2/services/Version.VersionHttpSoap11 EndpointWithSSLWithKerberos >> "/> >>>>>> </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. >>>>>> >>>>> Thank you so much for such a descriptive mail. I will think >>>>> though and >>>> send a reply soon.. >>>>> >>>>> -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] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Amila Suriarachchi, >> WSO2 Inc. > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
