"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote : anonymous wrote : | | 1) you have to scan through the whole message to build the outer SAAJ tree | | | | I don't think this is true. If we did not have SAAJ, we would still need to represent the SOAP tree with a structure like this | | | | Envelope | | Header ? | | HeaderElement * | | Body | | BodyElement | | ParamElement * | | | | SAAJ is ok for that, it also has a sufficient API for SwA. Not using SAAJ would mean to build some API that in the end is very close to it. |
What I am suggesting is that processing is done in the natural order of the message instead of in the order of the OperationDesc. This should avoid the need of building that outer tree structure for general message processing (with the exception of handlers). "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote : | Also, we have no choice but to support it because it is a public user API. | A user can exercise a WS communication solely by using SAAJ. | Yes, I worded my question wrong, I realize the API itself must be supported. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote : | I don't see a compelling reason for JBossWS not to use it internally at the level shown above. The DOM aspect of SAAJ is of course debatable, especially the deeper you go down the tree, but that's is a different story. | If the SAAJ tree is used internally, and it is constructed in advance, then the parser is either forced to process the entire message in multiple passes (which requires a copy since the source is a network stream), or it must build a tree containing the entirity of the message. If we deserialize the elements of the message in the order they come in, and without building a tree, we don't have to copy, and we can do everything in one pass (wth the exception of handlers). "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote : | There is no need to hold a copy of the incomming message if we can use the serializer/deserializer at the SOAPContentElement level to translate from XML to Java and vice versa. Therefore, even a large incomming message can be (eagerly) streamed to its Java object representation. On demand we can go back to XML using the associated serializer and make the DOM view available if necessary. | This is a good idea, though this wouldn't work if a message contained body or header elements that weren't bound to objects, yet were required by a handler. Also, the initial copy to support the interrnal SAAJ tree must still be performed, even though later it could be abandoned. -Jason View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3859385#3859385 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3859385 ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
