I think it is OK to be (or may be it should be) blocking for the local
transport. Using the local transport means that you have the service on
the same JVM and I don't think we want to add the overhead of non
blocking when the business logic or the service is on the same JVM.
Anyway the first
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
> What I wanted to say was we can have a blocking or non-blocking
> transport with the Synapse Operation Client. So if we make the local
> transport sender work in a non blocking manner that should be
> sufficient.
>
I am not sure wheth
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan
What I wanted to say was we can have a blocking or non-blocking
transport with the Synapse Operation Client. So if we make the local
transport sender work in a non blocking manner that should be
sufficient.
Thanks,
Supun..
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Amila Suriarachchi wrote:
>
>
> On Wed,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Hiranya Jayathilaka wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Amila Suriarachchi wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Heshan Suriyaarachchi
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Amila Suriarachchi
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Heshan Suriyaarachchi
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As you might know, we are having a local transport implementation in
>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Amila Suriarachchi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Heshan Suriyaarachchi
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you might know, we are having a local transport implementation in
>> Axis2. We are trying to make it available for ESB. Then with the help of
>> this
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Heshan Suriyaarachchi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you might know, we are having a local transport implementation in Axis2.
> We are trying to make it available for ESB. Then with the help of this
> transport; an esb proxy will be able to call a proxy residing in the same
>
Hi,
As you might know, we are having a local transport implementation in Axis2.
We are trying to make it available for ESB. Then with the help of this
transport; an esb proxy will be able to call a proxy residing in the same
esb through the local transport. I have tested the above mentioned scenar
12 matches
Mail list logo
