On 23/09/2011 17:06, ant elder wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Simon Nash<n...@apache.org> wrote:
Simon Laws wrote:
snip....
1) Supporting different binding types for the request and callback
messages is currently not supported by Tuscany, should it be?
Not supporting this makes things much simpler so unless there is a
compelling use case for needing mixed bindings I'd like to say mixing
binding types is not supported.
While the spec doesn't outlaw it my "keep it simple" reaction would be
to agree. However this would be different from what we did in 1.x so
I'd like to understand the various scenarios when people might use
manually configured callback bindings and see whether taking this
simplification is really practical.
Regards
Simon
I'm not sure if this exactly fits, but I do recall some discussions
in the OASIS TC about the caller being behind a firewall and able
to send SOAP/HTTP requests but not able to receive SOAP/HTTP callback
requests.
That sounds reasonable in theory but in practice i wonder if there are
actually bindings we have in Tuscany which could open up an accessible
service endpoint if HTTP isn't possible? I'd guess JMS or RMI probably
wouldn't work either if the firewall is blocking HTTP. An alternative
could be the polling approach the specs describe with the noListener
intent, we don't have support for that yet either but i wonder if that
might be more useful to implement than to try to get multiple binding
types working.
...ant
I think the discussions in the Bindings TC related to the use of WS-MakeConnection, which is the
more general mechanism provided to deal with components which are unable to offer web service
endpoints due to trivialities like firewalls. This is in effect the "polling mechanism" that Ant
describes - but it has the advantage of being a fully general spec which can be used in a variety of
cases.
I don't think that diving into the complexities of different forward & callback bindings is
justified by this usecase. Do we have any real examples where the forward call would be binding.ws
(say) and the callback binding HAS to be something else - binding.jms, say??
I understand that we don't support WS Make-Connection at the moment. If we get demand for the
capability, I think it would be better to look at adding WS-MakeConnection support.
Yours, Mike.
