Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-11 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 11/2/03 4:00, "ivelin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pier, > > Can you explain how do you plan to pass the parameters from the Http Request > to the target URL? > Do they override the once in the sitemap configuration for the generator? > The idea of the WSProxy is to be used in its simplest

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-11 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 11/2/03 8:56, "Sylvain Wallez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tony Collen wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Nathaniel Alfred wrote: >> >>> Why not use plain old FileGenerator? At least with 2.1's URLSource >>> >>> http://backend/article?id=xyz"/> >>> >>> works like a charm. Am I missing someth

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-11 Thread Sylvain Wallez
Tony Collen wrote: On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Nathaniel Alfred wrote: Why not use plain old FileGenerator? At least with 2.1's URLSource http://backend/article?id=xyz"/> works like a charm. Am I missing something? The WSP also passes any POST or GET parameters to the remote host

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread ivelin
ROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 5:09 PM Subject: Re: WSProxyGenerator > On 10/2/03 21:00, "Tony Collen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Nathaniel Alfred wrote: > > > >> Wh

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 10/2/03 21:00, "Tony Collen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Nathaniel Alfred wrote: > >> Why not use plain old FileGenerator? At least with 2.1's URLSource >> > >>http://backend/article?id=xyz"/> >> >> works like a charm. Am I missing something? > > The WSP also pa

RE: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Tony Collen
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Nathaniel Alfred wrote: > Why not use plain old FileGenerator? At least with 2.1's URLSource > >http://backend/article?id=xyz"/> > > works like a charm. Am I missing something? The WSP also passes any POST or GET parameters to the remote host, which is something the Fi

RE: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Nathaniel Alfred
>-Original Message- >From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Montag, 10. Februar 2003 19:04 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: WSProxyGenerator > ... > >So, literally, for me an article is that XML document found at > >http://backend/article?i

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Pier Fumagalli wrote, On 10/02/2003 20.13: On 10/2/03 18:30, "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMHO, web service != WSDL. IMHO, web service = transport + xml, thus HTTP+XML is a web service. AFAIU, WSDL is the way to describe (formalize) web service. But it perfectly works without i

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 10/2/03 18:30, "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMHO, web service != WSDL. > IMHO, web service = transport + xml, thus HTTP+XML is a web service. > AFAIU, WSDL is the way to describe (formalize) web service. But it > perfectly works without it. I use the "Goddard Compliancy Test

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/2/03 17:37, "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How about webservices (ws?) block? We have axis stuff in the scratchpad which also could be thrown into it. Well, I don't know... But, I _do_not_like_ web services... :-) ... But that's far from wri

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 10/2/03 17:37, "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How about webservices (ws?) block? We have axis stuff in the scratchpad > which also could be thrown into it. Well, I don't know... But, I _do_not_like_ web services... :-) I need, though, an HttpProxyGenerator: in my application

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Stefano Mazzocchi
Torsten Curdt wrote: Is there a reason why the WebServiceProxyGenerator reads the entire response into a String and then parses _that_ instead of parsing the InputStream of the HTTP connection??? Pier > Deja vu? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=104399362409715&w=2 The

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/2/03 16:56, "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pier Fumagalli wrote: Is there a reason why the WebServiceProxyGenerator reads the entire response into a String and then parses _that_ instead of parsing the InputStream of the HTTP connection??? Pi

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 10/2/03 17:03, "Torsten Curdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Is there a reason why the WebServiceProxyGenerator reads the entire >>> response >>> into a String and then parses _that_ instead of parsing the >>> InputStream of >>> the HTTP connection??? >>> >>>Pier >> >> Deja vu? >> >> ht

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Pier Fumagalli
On 10/2/03 16:56, "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pier Fumagalli wrote: > >> Is there a reason why the WebServiceProxyGenerator reads the entire response >> into a String and then parses _that_ instead of parsing the InputStream of >> the HTTP connection??? >> >>Pier >> >>

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Torsten Curdt
Is there a reason why the WebServiceProxyGenerator reads the entire response into a String and then parses _that_ instead of parsing the InputStream of the HTTP connection??? Pier > Deja vu? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=104399362409715&w=2 They changed the matrix ;) --

Re: WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Vadim Gritsenko
Pier Fumagalli wrote: Is there a reason why the WebServiceProxyGenerator reads the entire response into a String and then parses _that_ instead of parsing the InputStream of the HTTP connection??? Pier Deja vu? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=104399362409715&w=2 Vadim

WSProxyGenerator

2003-02-10 Thread Pier Fumagalli
Is there a reason why the WebServiceProxyGenerator reads the entire response into a String and then parses _that_ instead of parsing the InputStream of the HTTP connection??? Pier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]