[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       axis-dev
Subject:    Re: WS-Addressing metadata/WSDL compliance
From:       Deepal jayasinghe <deepalk () gmail ! com>
Date:       2011-09-28 23:21:51
Message-ID: 4E83AC0F.2000303 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 9/28/2011 12:25 PM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:
> My second point is about the interplay between the Anonymous element and
> the dual channel implementation provided by Axis. If I understand it
> correctly, Axis supports the dual channel invocation out of the box and
> I consider this a great feature, however I think it is a bit cumbersome
> that this has to be explicitly enabled via useSeparateListener(true) on
> the client side and setting the DO_ASYNC property/parameter on the
> provider side. I think this can be configured automatically via the
> Anonymous element (i.e. setting it to 'prohibited') in the WSDL (or this
> element could be written to the WSDL if dual channel transport is
> enabled). I think Deepal recently committed a changeset that tweaked the
> provider part to be smart enough to respond on a separate channel when a
> non-anonymous Reply-To EPR was present in the request headers. To be
> compliant with the spec, this should IMO only work if the Anonymous
> element is not set to 'required', so it should be constrained
> accordingly. In turn, when the element is set to 'prohibited', it should
> always respond via a second channel and throw and exception if an
> anonymous EPR has been sent in the request.
IMO, use of dual channels is entirely up to the user, he can decide
whether to invoke the service in sync or async manner. Same service
should be able to invoke both in sync and async manner, in fact Axis2
support that. However I see a very interesting point here. That is, if
the service author knows that the service invocation takes time (higher
than common HTTP connection timeout), then he can enforce invocation
model through WSDL.
>
> Likewise the client (or the code generator) should be able to reflect
> the presence and values of the anonymous element in the WSDL.
>
> IMO, this will make it way easier to automatically configure client and
> services and will also make this awesome feature more accessible for
> users (because it is declarative).
+1.
>
> >From an implementation point of view, I think a) the kernel should be
> made aware of anonymous/non-anonymous reply-to addresses, should capture
> that flag in the description of services and operations and should
> validate WS-A headers against these settings and b) there should be
> serializers and deserializers for these settings for both, [1] and [2].
+1
>
> So far from my side, I think we're talking about a valuable feature so I
> hope the mail is not too long to get some attention :)
>
> Remains the question: WDYT? ;)
I agree this is an important thing that we need to address, specially
fix the addressing related issues and then reflect rest to the code
generation.

Deepal
>
> Best,
>   Tammo
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-wsdl/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-metadata/
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@axis.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@axis.apache.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]