t;
>
>
> *Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
>
> 06/25/2007 10:44 AM
> Please respond to
> axis-dev@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
> To
>
> axis-dev@ws.apache.org
>
MAIL PROTECTED]>
*Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
06/25/2007 10:44 AM
Please respond to
axis-dev@ws.apache.org
To
axis-dev@ws.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: [Axis2] Dispatch
So, IMO, lets move them, lets get the API/SPI right if we can (while
maintaining backwards compatibility).
+1 to this, and to the "move, extend, and deprecate" pattern that's
being discussed.
--Glen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mai
>"Davanum
> Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> *"Davanum Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
>
> 06/25/2007 09:29 AM
> Please respond to
> axis-dev@ws.apa
AM
Subject
Re: [Axis2] Dispatchers in
Please respond to org.apache.axis2.engine package
[EMAI
Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
>
> 06/25/2007 09:29 AM
> Please respond to
> axis-dev@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
> To
>
> "Afkham Azeez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
m>"Afkham Azeez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
06/25/2007 09:29 axis-dev@ws.apache.org
AM
So, if i come up with a technique for backward compat w/o touching the
old axis2.xml files, that should be ok right?
thanks,
dims
On 6/25/07, Afkham Azeez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am not in favor of this change. This is going to annoy a large number of
users who may want to migrate from Axi
Aaaargh.
Sorry, this is all my fault. I was trying to do the *right thing* and
have them in .engine but I keep on getting distracted. I think in
.dispatchers is the right place - I've always said I don't think any
user should have to look in the .engine package.
If we do move the dispatchers, my
I am not in favor of this change. This is going to annoy a large number of
users who may want to migrate from Axis2 1.2 to 1.3. They will have to edit
all of their axis2.xml files. They may go thorugh a lot of pain to figure
out that the package has to be changed in their axis2.xml files. The last
Guess, i am trying to get the public API "right"...Right now there are
some *Dispatcher classes in org.apache.axis2.dispatchers and some
*Dispatchers in org.apache.axis2.engine.
-- dims
On 6/24/07, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, aren't the package names of dispatchers sort
Also, aren't the package names of dispatchers sort of a "public API" bit
of Axis2?? If so I'm against this unless there's something to be gained by it.
Sanjiva.
Eran Chinthaka wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have no objection to this but is there something you will gain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have no objection to this but is there something you will gain by
doing this or rather is there a problem if we leave them as it is? This
is some what similar to the question Sanjiva was asking and had become
the theme for me when I am doing any chan
Team,
Anyone object to moving the following classes to org.apache.axis2.dispatchers?
AddressingBasedDispatcher.java
HTTPLocationBasedDispatcher.java
InstanceDispatcher.java
RequestURIBasedDispatcher.java
RequestURIOperationDispatcher.java
SOAPActionBasedDispatcher.java
SOAPMessageBodyBasedDispat
; Modified:
>
webservices/axis2/trunk/java/modules/kernel/src/org/apache/axis2/dispatchers/ActionBasedOperationDispatcher.java
>
webservices/axis2/trunk/java/modules/kernel/src/org/apache/axis2/engine/AddressingBasedDispatcher.java
>
webservices/axis2/trunk/jav
Hi Ruchith:
I very much like the ability to quickly configure the handler chain
using axis2.xml. As long as nothing creates conflicts, why shouldn't we
allow this?
Are you talking about handlers in general?
If so... I was under the impression that with Axis2 the users will NOT
not have access
Hi Deepal:
As I understand we came to a conclusion that the only way to deploy
handlers using module. So if some one want to add a handler he has to
create module and write it module.xml correctly and engage that module.
(I know the fact that it make simple case harder). But I do not think we
here is my +1
Thanks,
Deepal
~Future is Open~
- Original Message -
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:15 AM
Subject: R
directory.
comments ...
Thanks,
Deepal
~Future is Open~
- Original Message -
From: "Glen Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [axis2] Dispatchers
Hi
Hi All,
Please see my commens below:
On 10/26/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Deepal, Sanjiva:
>
> >>> What I'm trying to say is that we should NOT hard-code the dispatch
> >>> order, we should have it simply exist as configuration in the default
> >>> axis2.xml file.
> >>
> >> +
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 19:01 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 from me. Glen please go ahead and clean it up :) I agree with the
> principle, default should come from axis2.xml
+1 from me too!
Sanjiva.
+1 from me. Glen please go ahead and clean it up :) I agree with the
principle, default should come from axis2.xml
thanks,
dims
On 10/25/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Deepal, Sanjiva:
>
> >>> What I'm trying to say is that we should NOT hard-code the dispatch
> >>> order, we sh
Hi Deepal, Sanjiva:
What I'm trying to say is that we should NOT hard-code the dispatch
order, we should have it simply exist as configuration in the default
axis2.xml file.
+1 .. Deepal what's the advantage of having it fixed programmatically
instead of being read in from the config?
In the
Hi
see my comments below;
Thanks,
Deepal
~Future is Open~
- Original Message -
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [axis2] Dispa
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 12:46 -0400, Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> What I'm trying to say is that we should NOT hard-code the dispatch
> order, we should have it simply exist as configuration in the default
> axis2.xml file.
+1 .. Deepal what's the advantage of having it fixed programmatically
instead
Hi Glen, Deepal;
I think I am the one who hardcode the dispatchers in the first place.
But I am convinced
that it is a *bad* thing to do. I am +1 to add them all to the
dispatcher phase in the axis2.xml and let them be just Handlers
Thanks
Srinath
On 10/24/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Hi Deepal:
I agree on that Dispatcher itself is a handler
Ok.
but the name "Dispatcher" implies different meaning than a handler , it
is obvious that a module can configure to put handlers into Dispatch
phase we are not avoiding doing that (in fact I did the same thing to a
the SypaseToy t
ks,
Deepal
~Future is Open~
- Original Message -
From: "Glen Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [axis2] Dispatchers
Glen Daniels wrote:
* I don't like having the default d
Glen Daniels wrote:
* I don't like having the default dispatchers be deployed in a way that
causes them NOT to appear in the standard axis2.xml file.
To be clear here, I'm talking about
AxisConfigurationImpl.setDefaultDispatchers()...
The basic idea of that whole message is that there's no s
Hi folks!
A few comments about dispatchers/handlers:
* Does having an "AbstractDispatcher" class really help us in any way?
The only thing it really seems to do that's useful is the "relatesTo"
check... but shouldn't that check itself happen elsewhere (like in a
separate handler)? Right now
30 matches
Mail list logo
