axis-c-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Samisa Abeysinghe" <>
Subject RE: Two build questions
Date Wed, 24 Aug 2005 04:34:54 GMT
Hi Kevin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Rogers []
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:20 AM
> To: Apache AXIS C User List
> Subject: Re: Two build questions
> Hey Samisa, thanks for the response. See my notes below:
> Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
> >We seem to have few problems with Xerces 2.6 with some test cases.
> >However, I was able to run the samples both on Linux and Windows
> >Xerces 2.6
> >
> >
> I am, unfortunately, unable to upgrade to 2.6 at this time because of
> dependencies of other tools in my work envirnoment on Xerces.  I'll
> trying, or maybe try to set up my environment to fall back to the 2.2
> version that Axis 1.5.0 was built against.

Xerces 2.0 doe not seem to have any problems at the moment. Hence you
will have fewer issues with it.

> >axisapp.conf file is not pointing to the Xerces parser. Rather it is
> >ponting to the Axis C++ implementation of the Xerces based paser
> >abstraction layer lib.
> >
> >
> >The libs such as Xerces are infact are picked from the lib path. We
> >need the axiscpp.conf file to specify the location of the paser,
> >transport and cannel abstraction implementations.
> >
> >
> Yes, this is true. However, isn't this why you copy
> (the default parser library) to (or create a
> simlink to accomplish the same thing)? Am I misunderstanding in
> that these two libs are supposed to be exactly the same, only with
> different names?

Well you do not have to have different names. You can use directly in axiscpp.conf file

> If I am understanding correctly, this requires a step (post-build) on
> the user's part to make sure that they have either copied or linked
> appropriate XML parser lib so that it is represented by the name
> 'axis_xmlparser', which is just an abstraction you have placed on top
> it. If this is the case, why not just do the same thing for the
> transport and channel libs? Meaning, why don't you provide generic lib
> names as an abstraction on top of the libraries, and then rely on the
> user to either copy or link them post-build? This would do away with
> need for the conf file, correct?

The only reason that I can think of to have a conf file is to have the
possibility of switching the transport and parser libs.

However, as we build shared libs, as you are suggesting, we would be
able to pick the libs from the lib path and use it.
I have never tried it but you have a valid point here. As of now the
code is written to locate it from conf file and load it - may be this
can be changed, but someone needs to look into the viability.


> >>Second, for right now, I need to have the axiscpp.conf file located
> >>somewhere other that /etc, and was wondering what needs to be done
> >>make that happen?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You do not need to have the conf file in /etc. All that you have to
> >is to define the AXISCPP_DEPLOY environment variable. Then both the
> >server and clients will try to locate the conf file from
> >
> >Obviously, if AXISCPP_DEPLOY is not set, it will look in /etc.
> >
> >
> Thanks! That hint just helped me track that down to the
> common/AxisConfig.cpp file. I'll try that out now.
> Best,
> Kevin
> --
> Kevin Rogers
> PDI / Dreamworks
> ext.29163 | 650.562.9163

View raw message