:-) I enjoy getting the credit for Brian's work.
David
On 07/03/07, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks David! Definitely +1 for fixing this in Sandesha ..
Sanjiva.
Brian De Pradine wrote:
>
> Hi Sanjiva,
>
> If this problem can be fixed in the Sandesha layer that will be bet
Thanks David! Definitely +1 for fixing this in Sandesha ..
Sanjiva.
Brian De Pradine wrote:
Hi Sanjiva,
If this problem can be fixed in the Sandesha layer that will be better
than the current fix. I will revert the changes.
Cheers
Brian DePradine
Web Services Development
IBM Hursley
Exter
Hi Sanjiva,
If this problem can be fixed in the Sandesha layer that will be better
than the current fix. I will revert the changes.
Cheers
Brian DePradine
Web Services Development
IBM Hursley
External +44 (0) 1962 816319 Internal 246319
If you can't find the time to do it right the fi
Brian De Pradine wrote:
In this scenario the server sends a response message to the client. The
client then tries to send an acknowledgement to the server, but the
acknowledgement gets lost, for whatever reason. This means that the
WS-RM layer, in the server, will eventually time-out and send
(sorry, there was a mistake in the previous post)
On 3/5/07, Chamikara Jayalath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the clarification. Please see below.
On 3/4/07, Matthew Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> "Chamikara Jayalath" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/03/2007
> 02:55:4
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the clarification. Please see below.
On 3/4/07, Matthew Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Chamikara Jayalath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/03/2007 02:55:45:
> Hi Brian, All,
>
> This is why we were acking this kind of messages in our global handler.
>
> Matt, what was
"Chamikara Jayalath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/03/2007 02:55:45:
> Hi Brian, All,
>
> This is why we were acking this kind of messages in our global handler.
>
> Matt, what was the reason for moving this logic to the
> SandeshaInHandler. The comment did not help much :-(
> ( http://svn.a
Hi Brian, All,
This is why we were acking this kind of messages in our global handler.
Matt, what was the reason for moving this logic to the SandeshaInHandler.
The comment did not help much :-(
( http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=504544 )
Chamikara
On 3/3/07, Brian De Pradine <[
Hi Sanjiva,
I will try my best. :-)
Here is a WS-RM scenario that currently doesn't work,
Client Server
-- --
| 1. Response|
| <-
Hi Brian,
That doesn't make sense to me- if the MEP has completed then the message
is arriving after everything has happened. The MEP would not have been
marked complete unless RM successfully delivered the message to the receiver.
So if after that a message arrives referring to a completed o
Oops, I misunderstood the change. I added the explicit check and fault
in the last couple of weeks because there was a timing window when
sandesha is engaged where the duplicate message is detected deep in
axis2 and the fault was confusing (unclear to any non-axis2-dev).
I guess this change is si
Hello,
Apologies for not making the intent clearer. We are not swallowing the
message, but instead simply allowing it to continue on it's way through
the flow. The idea is that we do not have enough information in the
AddressingBasedDispatcher to determine that such messages are 'bad'.
Instead
+1 but I'm confused why we'd remove this exception .. if someone sends a
response message again we should be saying "nope been there done that
already" back to the sender. If you eat the exception and log it they have
no info. What is broken about the old code?
Sanjiva.
David Illsley wrote:
Hi Brian,
I think it's important that if this (message being swallowed) is
happening, that we make it very obvous. What do you think about
logging at a higher level than debug?
David
On 28/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: pradine
Date: Wed Feb 28 09:43:07 2007
New Revi
14 matches
Mail list logo
