Sorry for being late in getting in to this. Am having some connectivity problem and hence I am over my phone.
+1 for paul's idea on transport specific configuration rather than keeping these to generic properties. We need an extension to enpoind, ep builders and serializers. Basically through a set of interfaces. I do have a complete design in my mind and will post it once i get the connectivity through my machine :-) Thanks, Ruwan On 7/17/08, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric > > Excellent point about load-balanced/failover endpoints. +1. > > I think it would be very good to be able to set transport properties > on an endpoint level. How about having some specific transport > specific configuration elements: > > e.g. > > > <http version="1.0|1.1" chunked="true|false"> > <proxy....> > <accept....> > </http> > > <jms....> > > We could build some extension model which allows settings for > arbitrary transports to be added in a way that is natural for that > transport, so we could later add <smtp> or <fix>. > > Paul > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Hubert, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> sounds like an interersting idea. We actually define it in exactly that >> way >> on an endpoint level in our custom "repository" and generate a synapse.xml >> containing the property mediator to set this property. It would be more >> straightforward to be able to set this at the endpoint level. There one >> should consider LoadbalanceEndpoints as a kind of container from which >> "child endpoints" should inherit the defaults. Right now some properties >> need to be specified at the individual endpoint level like suspend >> duration >> and timeout. Most of the time all endpoints of a loadbalancing group >> should >> be handled in the same way (either all http 1.0 or all http 1.1 etc.) Just >> a >> thought… >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Asankha C. Perera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:08 PM >> To: dev@synapse.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Making force HTTP 1.0 a part of the endpoint definition? >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> Infact I was thinking of the same thing.. and was suggesting to Ruwan >> about >> allowing properties to be set at an Endpoint level.. and the most useful >> properties could be for HTTP 1.0. use of just the PATH instead of full >> URL, >> setting JMS reply destinations etc.. >> >> asankha >> >> Paul Fremantle wrote: >> >> I'm generally against hard-coding transport specifics, but the high >> >> number of people running into trouble with HTTP1.0-only servers makes >> >> me wonder if its worth us adding a flag to the endpoint definition to >> >> force HTTP 1.0? >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Asankha C. Perera >> >> WSO2 - http://wso2.org >> http://esbmagic.blogspot.com > > > > -- > Paul Fremantle > Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2 > Apache Synapse PMC Chair > OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com Ruwan Linton http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform" http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
